[merged] Vancian Magic System and cooldowns

[Hagen]

The Vancian casting system is a relic of the bad old times that should have been laid to rest a decade or so ago.

 

I have posted this in the old poll before - I would prefer something similar to the Ars Magica system, in short:

 

-separate skills for different aspects of magic (creation, fire, body, etc)

-overall ability to cast a spell = add skill points for the aspects that spell uses, difficulty depends on complexity

-casting fatigues the caster (unless a "better than necessary" success is scored), fatigue causes increasing negative modifiers

-powerful spells require a long casting time that must not be interrupted

-any spells meant to have a permanent effect (i.e. all healing spells for example) require the expenditure of a magical ingredient

-extracting magic ingredients (from defeated magical creatures and such) should be a skill of its own

-optional: magical ingredients are categorized by magical aspects too and can only be used for spells in which the aspect is present

 

This limits spellcasting by:

-fatigue (resting should only be effective once per 24 hour period to avoid spamming)

-casting time (for very powerful spells)

-magical ingredients

 

Overall, I feel a system like this makes spellcasting a more involved process than just loading some spell slots and firing them off.

 

Well, that... and I just don't like the whole memorisation idea.

[Cthulchulain]

It may be worth bearing in mind that spells may not be the only manifestation of "soul power" -- there seems to have been some indication (don't ask for citations) that non-caster classes can also draw on their souls to perform superhuman feats. 4e-esque per-day/per-encounter etc abilities could work for all classes (one aspect of 4e I personally like).

 

IMHO a fatigue system as has been suggested (coupled with some resource) seems ideally suited for limiting overuse of abilities plus maintaining realism. No reason that couldn't be hybridised with some ability selection -- prepare spells to make them less resource-intensive to use. The 3e spontaneous conversion of spells by divine casters was also a neat mechanism that might have a place somewhere.

 

But regardless of what OE decide to implement, I'm sure they'll provide a detailed lore explanation of why things work the way they do, and that's from an RP perspective the most important thing for me.

[Elerond]

Maybe it would be best if we forgot both vancian and manabar systems and go full on skill-based system. Like where mage can learn conjuration, evokation, illusion, summoning skills as base skills, which s/he uses to cast different kinds of spells. Each spell has difficult level, like what higher difficult level is more mage gets penalty to his or her skill check. And addition to that mage can decide how fast s/he tries to cast spell, shorter casting time means more penalty to skill check and longer casting times comparably make skill check easier. And then we can throw addition of mix skill checks for more powerful spells to stop mages to think before they min max one skill detriment others.

[Merin]

Maybe it would be best if we forgot both vancian and manabar systems and go full on skill-based system. Like where mage can learn conjuration, evokation, illusion, summoning skills as base skills, which s/he uses to cast different kinds of spells. Each spell has difficult level, like what higher difficult level is more mage gets penalty to his or her skill check. And addition to that mage can decide how fast s/he tries to cast spell, shorter casting time means more penalty to skill check and longer casting times comparably make skill check easier. And then we can throw addition of mix skill checks for more powerful spells to stop mages to think before they min max one skill detriment others.

 

I'm not sure I like it, overall, but it does seem like the kind of thinking outside the box I'd personally like to see overall.

[DCParry]

I don't get the complaint about mages "spamming" magic. First, it is a false argument. Any well designed resource management system will work to reduce both the need and advantage of spamming.

 

Also, as a mage character, someone who has spent their life dedicated to the arcane arts, I do not want to be a piss poor archer 80% of the time and then a living embodiment of death the other 20%, For me, this is what a Vancian system entails.

 

Also, I know part of the pitch for PE was to recapture the magic of the IE games, but please, can we leave the D&D behind. I mean, the implementation of a problematic ruleset for CRPG's was great, but I think Obsidian can design a unique system that doesn't have Melf or Tenser in it.

[codexer]

snip

 

The real disadvantages if casting is done on mana or on cooldown and all spells are available at all the time is that the spell list has to be small, otherwise the game won't be balanced.

[Wirdjos]

I find it hard to believe that a pure Vancian system could even be used considering the only real thing we know about the setting is that magic runs on soul power. That seems to be a direct statement that mana, being soul power itself, is a part of this game. Perhaps a Vancian system could be simulated through slow to no mana regen though. I don't know if that would work, but I do have faith in whatever Obsidian is planning.

 

On the topic of mana, I would like to bring up an interesting thing DA:O did with mana potions (in lore, not mechanics as the mechanics were the same old). Mana potions were made of an element that was actually poisonous to people in general and mages especially. This made chugging mana potions like downing a cup of spiritual Red Bull if energy drinks were distilled from battery acid. If they do go with a mana system, I would like to see a downside to any instant regeneration that implied it was actually danagerous to use.

[Adhin]

@Trashman: DnD system isn't even explained, its a ruleset applied to the worlds. None of the worlds explain why they can only memorize a certain number of things. It doesn't make sense in DnD, at all. I've been i RP situations where folks have tried to explain it, and they can't. All they can do is explain how it works, not why its that way. To me, that's a very, very big difference in making something believeable. The second your explaination as to try something is the way it is, comes down to anime shoulder shrugging of '... and thats the way it is' and everyone just kinda nods like 'makes sense, I geuss its just that way because yeah'. Even though they kinda don't explain it and... yeah.

 

I still think its bad, I can understand from a 'gameplay' perspective how it can be a very tactical thing when in a PnP setting and they're is just more information to go around on that kind of stuff. But it generally falls flat for me in cRPG's and, from that, I start to look at why its even there and there is no reason beyond it being a game rule. Feel free to find a DnD description of why the magic works like that in any of the worlds. Frankly I'd love to read an actual reasoning of it from a non-game rule perspective for once.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Adhin

[Gatt9]

The vancian system is pretty rubbish for cRPG's. It seems to encourage rest-spamming, reloading and powergaming.

 

So do the other systems.

 

-Cooldowns: Figure out the optimal order to fire off spells in, such that the cooldowns never prevent you from ceasing fire.

 

Mana based: Do the math to figure out which spells deliver the most damage per mana point.

 

Reloading is a strawman arguement. Every system is vulnerable to it. If you choose the wrong spells to cast in a cooldown system, or a mana system, you'll be reloading there too.

 

Every system is vulnerable to metagaming, this is a Player problem, not a mechanic problem.

 

I still think its bad, I can understand from a 'gameplay' perspective how it can be a very tactical thing when in a PnP setting and they're is just more information to go around on that kind of stuff. But it generally falls flat for me in cRPG's and, from that, I start to look at why its even there and there is no reason beyond it being a game rule. Feel free to find a DnD description of why the magic works like that in any of the worlds. Frankly I'd love to read an actual reasoning of it from a non-game rule perspective for once.

 

It's there because it generates game balance in a way no other system is able. The Mage is *extremely* powerful in contrast to a Warrior, and if there isn't some limitation upon him, he'll dominate the game. Cooldowns and Mana based systems bypass this balance, You can see a ready example of this with Dragon Age Origins, as soon as the mage is able to cast his AOE combos and spells, the whole party stands around watching as the Mage just handles every encounter with 2 spells.

 

The alternative must be to downgrade his spells until they're the equivalent of a Warrior's sword swing or an Archer's arrow. At that point, he's effectively almost all of his positive benefits, if he's only doing the damage of a Warrior, then you might as well just have another Warrior and gain the increased HP's and defense.

 

This thread really illustrates why the limitations of the Vancian system are necessary, because so many people here clearly exploit the system to the best of their ability as soon as a DM isn't present to stop them from sleeping every 10 minutes.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Gatt9

[eimatshya]

I agree with those who have pointed out that in the Vancian Magic system, wizards are more-or-less worthless the vast majority of the time since they are only able to use their magic a few times per day and battles usually consist of them trying, and failing, to hit an enemy with a 1d4 sling. In contrast a fighter in third edition D&D can power attack with a two handed sword an unlimited number of times per day. In this way, a fighter with 18 strength and a two handed sword can easily exchange -2 to hit for a +4 to damage and deal 2d6+10 damage per hit (or more if he takes a larger penalty to attack). As such, over the course of the day the fighter's total damage will be many times higher than the wizard's unless you stop and sleep every hour or two, which is not fun or immersive.

 

I liked the way Arcanum's system fixed this extreme imbalance. Everyone had a pool of stamina, and when you did something tiring like swinging a sword or casting a spell, you lost an amount of stamina relative to the amount you had exerted yourself. As such, magic users could cast any spell they knew as many times as they wanted at any time, but they had to be careful not to overdo it or they would pass out. Fighters could still attack as much as they wanted, but they too had to worry about not pushing themselves too hard since their stamina was depleting as well.

[Shevek]

I think it's possible to still make prep meaningful by allowing the player to switch between pre-built (by the player) suites of spells at a frequency that is less than "per rest". I.e. if the player can only use a subset of spells at any given time, but can switch between those subsets with a time penalty (or only outside of combat), that still makes the choices important without the system strictly being Vancian.

 

That's better than a straight mana system with all spells available but that still means that the mage can swap in a bunch of buffs or utility spells, cast them and then swap in some other spells and charge into combat. That kinda system seems very, very open to abuse. Maybe the act of swapping spells would cancel out buffs? What about spells like knock? It seems to me that kinda system would either require limiting the wizard repetoire of spells or drastically nerfing them.

 

*Btw, has anyone brought up an event based magic system ala-4E? So, you have at-will powers (spammables), encounter powers (not sure how easy these would be to program; i.e. how do you delieniate one encounter from another in one of these games) and daily powers (these would be very powerful spells and would be memmed similarly to a vancian system). It not perfect by any means but it seems better to me than a mana system.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Shevek

[Caerdon]

Vancian casting is perfect. It rewards planning and foresight, qualities a wizard ought to possess. It also fosters versatility.

 

It rewards metagaming and reloading. And how on earth does it foster versatility, when each day you're forced to pick the spells you're not going to use that day?

 

Because the way to approach the system is to pick a balanced set of spells that should carry you over the course of several encounters, and use them judiciously. Not trying to have your wizard casting spells at the same speed your fighter is swinging his sword. If you didn't use the spells that day, it's because you chose the wrong spells, and you should be adjusting your strategy.

 

Yes, it really is because I chose the wrong spells. I did that because there's no way to make an informed decision. I guessed wrong.

 

Of course I know to memorize fire spells when moving in a troll-infested area. But trolls are never the problem. The really tough opponent always surprises you. I may still be able to handle him with my 'balanced set of spells', but if I knew about this enemy in advance - a former playthrough, for example - I could prepare my spellbook specifically for this very encounter, and it would be easy as pie.

 

You see? Vancian spellcasting rewards metagaming.

 

It's not like we're talking PnP AD&D where there's dozens to hundreds of possibilities. In a CRPG you generally have very few choices. In a PnP game, spells like divinations, utility spells (Levitation, magic mouth, tenser's floating disk, etc), they're all useful. In a CRPG, they have no practical application. So really, all you're doing is choosing combat spells. Which is *alot* easier to predict what will be useful and what won't.

 

In PnP there's no reload, there are no walkthroughs and it's your first time through the campaing. That's why Vancian casting actually works in PnP. It's made for PnP. But it just collapses in CRPGs.

 

Further, you act as though cooldowns are somehow immune to metagaming and reloading, which they're not. If you make the wrong choices in a Cooldown system, you're still going to be metagaming and reloading.

 

I have never advocated a cooldown-based spellcasting system. And yes, realoading always leads to metagaming. But with Vancian spellcasting we're increasing it by an order of magnitude.

[Jasede]

There's nothing wrong with meta-gaming in a video game.

[Shevek]

The Vancian system did a VERY good job of limiting the Wizard's incredible variety of spells without gimping said spells or creating an overpowered class. AND it also led to some damn fine strategic planning. I have yet to hear an alternative that sounds as good.

 

Anywho, this is from Wikipedia; some may find it useful:

 

Spell systems

 

Characters within a game that includes rules for magic are commonly able to acquire the use of spells through some process. Usually this will either be a spell that the character has created; a spell gained from a book or other record; another in-game character that is willing to share the knowledge, or from a mysterious in-game source to whom the character has formed an allegiance. Again, that part has been streamlined in many action RPGs, and the player can pick new skills each time the character gains an experience level.

 

There are several common approaches for balancing and restricting the use of spells within a game system.

 

Memorization — The game character must memorize a fixed number of spells from the list of all spells the character knows. This memorization can only occur once in a specified time period, usually a day, or it may require the character to rest for several hours. This system is sometimes called "Vancian" in the game designer community, since its first use, in Dungeons & Dragons, was inspired by the way magic works in Jack Vance's Dying Earth world.[1][2]

 

Point-based — The character has a limited number of points, often called mana (or spell points in MUDs), that can be spent to activate spells. Each spell the character knows has a point cost. The points are periodically renewed through some means; usually by the passage of time. This is also used in Dungeons & Dragons, but only for Psionic manifesters, and as a variant rule for spellcasters. Warhammer players must expend a number of dice when casting spells, and each die contributes 1-6 points to the spell's activation cost. The points usually represent some kind of magical energy, though they may also represent physical or mental fatigue caused by the exertion required to cast spells; some systems therefore deplete hit points (or the equivalent) rather than having a separate pool of magic points.

 

Event-based — The character has a magic ability that can be used with limitations dictated by an event. This can be an event in time, or a situational event. One of the first popular uses of this system was in Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition, where spells are restricted to at-will, encounter, and daily event frames corresponding to 'at any time during a round', 'between the start and ending of an encounter', and 'at the beginning of the day until the beginning of the next day' respectively. Event based systems can have a great variety of events which both trigger the possibility of using a magic ability, or limits the instances a magic ability can be used during the course of an event.

 

As Powers — The character has a magic ability that can be simply defined as a magic power, or as magical in origin. When a magical ability has no restrictions (no need for a skill, no need to spend power points, no need to memorize, etc.) or when it has a simple mechanic (ex: just roll to attack), it can be defined as a magic power. For example, if a character has the ability to breathe fire with no restrictions this ability can be called a Fire Breathing Power. This approach to magic is closest to comic book characters who don't seem to be restricted as much as classical fantasy characters.

 

Skill-based — The character has a skill rating that defines the chance that a spell will be successfully activated. Failure has some type of consequence, such as personal injury or increased fatigue of the in-game character.

 

Cost — Single-use reagents may be required, and casting the magic consumes the reagents. The reagents may or may not come in different qualities, and if they do, high-quality reagents will usually result in increased effect, or at least a lowered risk of failure. The reagents for the most powerful spells are usually hard to get, or even strictly limited.

 

There are also some game systems that provide greater flexibility in the use of magic. These include rules for producing spells that are made up as needed, subject to the game rules and limitations. Examples of such systems include Ars Magica, Mage: The Ascension and Mage: The Awakening.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Shevek

[Locke03]

I picked "Other", "Other", and "Yes".

 

I would like to see a major difference between divine/cleric and arcane/wizard spells, not just a pool of different spells but completely different mechanics of using them.

 

I would like to see a more in-depth and complex spell system than I've seen so far.

 

I would like to see high-level wizards be massively powerful and capable of single-handedly changing the outcome of large battle by using the correct spell at the correct time.

 

As far as mechanics go (for arcane spells specifically, I've not given a lot of thought to divine spells as I rarely play cleric-type characters), a combination of different methods are something I have been thinking about. Divide up the spells into different classes and have each class work differently. e.g. A low-level tier set of simple spells that can be rapidly cast and are always available once learned but do little damage or have a minimal effect. These could be used as a mage's basic attacks. A mid-level tier of spells that can be used instantly but require some preparation beforehand, such as writing them into scrolls made of a specific material with a specific ink. Give mages a special scroll case inventory that holds a fair but limited number of scrolls. A high-level tier of game-changing spells that require one to combine a number of possibly expensive and/or rare reagents in the field. Have a core set of specific reagents (2 or 3 maybe) that form the core of the spell and then another set (1 or 2) that can be used to modify the core spell with a few positive and negative effects.

As an example and low-tier spell might be a small bolt of electricity that does damage but has no other or a very minor effect, a mid-tier spell might be an ice spike that does a fair bit of damage to a single target and freezes it in place for a few seconds, and an upper-tier spell would be something like a firestorm that could do massive damage over a lager area that almost insures that anything caught in it is dead.

 

Something else I hope to not see is a slavish devotion to "balance" that often irritates me in other games. A mage caught unawares and unprepared should have little chance against a blade wielding assailant while a line of soldiers facing down an experienced wizard head-to-head should quickly find themselves cooked in their armor. Every class should not be usable for every situation. I'd rather have a wizard that sits unused in small battles so I can bring out the nuclear option when need, than have that damage spread evenly over all situations.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Knock and its old friends spider climb and invisibility are part of a classic family of spells that made rogue and thief players say, "Hey, why do I exist?" I don't believe their inclusion in pre-4E editions of D&D and AD&D was a great thing. That sort of spell design is good if you're making a game specifically about how awesomely powerful wizards are (e.g. Ars Magica), but I don't think it's good in a class-based system where the classes are supposed to have different strengths and weaknesses. Also, I think the high-level design of rituals in 4E is a good thing because allows casters to retain the ability to use classic spells like speak with dead with a time and material cost. It just doesn't force players to choose, daily, between the spells they use constantly and the spells they use once every three to five sessions (in tabletop terms). It's pretty rare that someone "expects" to cast speak with dead, so any occasion where the player would have a good reason to use it is likely to catch the player unprepared under normal pre-4E conditions.

[ogrezilla]

The Vancian system did a VERY good job of limiting the Wizard's incredible variety of spells without gimping said spells or creating an overpowered class. AND it also led to some damn fine strategic planning. I have yet to hear an alternative that sounds as good.

 

with the way resting worked you could have your best spells available for pretty much every major fight in the game.

[Zeful]

For this I think a more stringent and universally applicable system would be best.

 

Something like Shadowrun's spell system where spells invoke a physical cost on the caster would be what I want to see. You select a spell, cast it and you have to make a check to endure the rigors of spellcasting. If you fail, you damage your soul, which reflects back onto the body, and you take damage^[1].

 

I would also couple this with a small mana pool that recharges at a moderate rate^[2], most spells "on your level" would nearly drain the full pool, while the weaker, "lower level" spells would leave more; allowing for high level casters to cast several weaker spells in sequence while larger spells require waiting a short while. Every time you cast a spell though, part of it's cost is "reserved", with failure doubling or even tripling this reserve cost^[3]. The reserve takes a much longer time to clear, hours, but time spent moving between adventure zones on the map counts toward it.

 

This system limits spell casting somewhat, preventing spamming through two mechanism a skill dependant casting system, making each spell cast a gamble, and an inherent cost restriction. High level casters will be able to spam low level spells, but in doing so, they might restrict their casting high level spells for a time. This system also works for non-casters though magically powered fighting styles, or other inherent magical abilities, and can be part of every class' architecture without impacting their design much.

 

1: Damage taken should depend on quite a number of factors, spell power, the caster's power, the caster's magical resistance, but not the caster's skill in magic.

2: In that casting spells of "your level" should require maybe two or three attacks with a quick weapon before you cast again. This should be based on the tempo of combat, you shouldn't have to manage every character in the party at once, it should be a cycle between your characters thus the game.

3: This would be a "degrees of success" mechanic, the better your character rolls are when casting a spell, the less each spell reserves of your mana pool, to a point; this also applies to failure, the closer you are to succeeding, the less mana is reserved. This prevents players from just spamming their best spell, as it would be harder to succeed on, resulting in, on average, less actual spells used over the course of the encounter. It also prevents casters from "just being better" than non-casters at mundane activities, and allow non-magical exploration skills to still be valid.

[fkldnhlsdngsfnhlsndlg]

I generally dislike cooldowns. I think they are a band-aid for poor design in many cases (too big a topic to go into why here at the moment), and effectively the lazy man's way towards achieving a degree of balance. That said, it's worth examining the unique traits of spell memorization and cooldowns to understand what makes them tick.

 

Spell Memorization

1. Requires players plan ahead to be effective.
   
2. Prevents players from spamming spells constantly.
   
3. Used in conjunction with spell levels, stops players from loading up on 10 copies of the same powerful spell.
   
4. Rest mechanic ties in with party healing, making a rest feature more mechanically interesting overall.
   
5. Time spent returning to town to rest is the real resource, not the spell uses themselves.
   

Cooldowns

1. Require less planning.
   
2. Makes attrition with respect to spells basically non-existent.
   
3. Allows players to focus on a few effective spells more easily, rather than being forced to load up with lots of throw-aways.
   
4. Makes resting less mechanically interesting.
   
5. Depending on how cooldowns are implemented, cooldowns serve as a limiter on the total maximum output in combat a mage can have, but only on a per-encounter basis.
   

I think both have strengths and weaknesses depending on the game. Cooldowns work great for action RPGs because hiking back to town isn't the same concern in a faster paced title, while spell memorization is much more interesting in a slower-paced turn-based situation, where the entire game design is centered around the player make careful considerations. It really depends on what Obsidian want to do with Project Eternity - slightly more hack and slash combat that's accessible and fast-paced, or slower-paced, deeper and more strategic gameplay.

 

That said, I would actually much rather avoid both of these systems. I think that spells should be some sort of finite resource, but spell memorization only really works well in a tabletop setting where you can't rest at will, and cooldowns are certainly not to my taste most of the time. There are two potential systems that would offer the same limitation on spell use without as many drawbacks.

 

The first is to have a mana pool that recharges very slowly, and can be refilled by resting in a safe zone, visiting a priest, etc. There can be ways of restoring mana in the field, but they should have drawbacks - even if it's just that mana potions are very rare. This system is self-balancing to a degree because players would have to choose between a larger number of weaker spells or a fewer number of stronger ones, but without the same meta-gaming element or situation where you get screwed because you took the wrong spells with you. A fatigue mechanic could work really well to limit mana as well - i.e. the longer you are away from town, the lower your total mana capacity gets until you can get a good rest, which will eventually reduce your combat effectiveness, meaning attrition is still important but you won't screw yourself over by running out of all spells entirely. See Frayed Knights for a really good implementation of this idea.

 

The second is to tie spells entirely to items. Scrolls, staves and wands would be exclusive to mages and would have a limited number of uses. These could be rechargeable through a variety of means, but you'd end up something resembling spell memorization with the added benefit of being able to find more magic in the field. This could also give players a recurring gold sink by making them pay for the consumables. This setup is, in my opinion, more mechanically interesting than either cooldowns or memorization, and with careful tweaking you could even have a rest mechanic remain useful (i.e. a skill that partially restores spell charges upon resting, up to a maximum percentage). The downside is that players can still be stuck without spells just like spell memorization, but this is a bit more flexible

 

Personally I like the mana pool and fatigue setup the best of them, but so long as it's not just straight-up cooldowns ala Dragon Age, I'll be happy. Obviously, the names of the suggestions above would need to change in the game itself, "mana" and "potions" are just stand-ins.

Edited October 1, 2012 by sea

[Caerdon]

A good DM, like a good Developer, is fully capable of giving you hints along the way without outright slapping you around with the information. Whether a player pays attention to such things or not, whether their character is able to detect them through the net of their skills or not, is not a meta gaming choice. Does the reload factor come in? Sure. However, no good Developer makes their game with the assumption a player will just reload. Obviously they'll reload. The hints and clues, and things people can find on or off the beaten path, the ways they can figure out what might be needed, what might be useless, are a part of crafting a game. I know this from putting together PnP games, if I need my players to have certain information, I'll have it available, either as a whole, or in small bits, clues by they hidden or spoken in a way that may not be immediately obvious.

 

These the things the creation side does to make sure that a tactical approach is actually viable. In PnP obviously I'm not going to let them reload, but if I were developing a game, while I'd surely note that a person can reload, I'd still make the game as if they couldn't. So that the needed information would be there.

 

That's a nice thought, but I've never heard of such 'good developers'. I don't know of a game where you can get consistent, useful and specific information about the opponents you're going to face. It'd be great if P:E would be one, but I highly doubt it.

 

A good DM or Developer will lay down the ground work you need to make intelligent decisions as to what you're going to bring to the battlefield, but they won't scream it in your face either. It's part of the adventure of an RPG, uncovering the hidden clue needed to defeat the "insert whatever here" instead of just rushing into its lair and getting deep fried. Listening to the tavern gossip and realizing that you might be jumped by Goblins out on the road, as that's been happening lately. Seeing the wanted posters for a local gang of Bandits in the area. There, part of the scenery, or in the case of the "instert whatever here" hidden, a known problem with an unknown solution that you have to track down. Oversimplified examples, sure, but the logic stands when running a game.

 

Who cares about goblins? Tavern gossips are never goint to tell you that there will be a barbarian wielding an Axe of Entanglement, an archer with poisoned +1 arrows and 50% magic resistance and a mage that will cast simulacrums and summon basilisks. You know, things that you'll actually want to know. But the only way to know is to meet them in battle.

 

You can run into this encounter with your spellbook tailored for things you might encounter on the road. Or you can actually be prepared for this very battle. The difference is staggering, and only Vancian spellcasters have this kind of imbalance built into them.

 

The issue that breaks such things apart, is not, in fact, reloading, because outside of a hardcore mode you can't stop people from doing that, but instead something much more simple: "The Resting System." The resting system tends to be what's exploited in games that don't have the common sense to prevent you from resting constantly, and putting in deterrents that, well, deter people from just resting every few minutes to always be full on spells. Again this is something plenty of older games actually addressed even when they didn't use the D&D-like spell system they added in rests being limited by location, by potential encounters, by the heroes not feeling tired and thus refusing to rest and so on and so forth in so many ways that I doubt I've even experienced them all, and I've experienced quite a few.

 

Any restrictions on resting with a Vancian spellcasting system just makes metagaming even more useful, because not wasting a single spell slots becomes all the more important.

 

Resting is not the problem. Reloading is only a part of the problem. The real problem is Vancian spellcasting.

[Caerdon]

There's nothing wrong with meta-gaming in a video game.

 

You know, that's actually the first really good reason to have Vancian spellcasting that I've heard. If you love metagaming, that's the system you should use.

 

My opinion, obviously, is different. Metagaming is diametrically opposed to what role-playing is all about. I find you choice of words curious: "in a video game". Do you think metagaming is not okay in PnP then?

[Jasede]

No, unless you're expressively playing a hack & slash campaign and every player and the DM agreed on the campaign being exclusively about mechanical challenges, or unless you're playing a war game.

[Stun]

That's a nice thought, but I've never heard of such 'good developers'. I don't know of a game where you can get consistent, useful and specific information about the opponents you're going to face. It'd be great if P:E would be one, but I highly doubt it.

I think the point is to not make it specific. A good DM makes it just vague enough so that it doesn't feel like you're being spoon-fed instructions on how to win. (although there's nothing wrong with flat out spoon-feeding instructions every once in a while, especially early on) But generally, a good DM will want to keep it Just vague enough so that a keen, alert player can connect the dots, while a dumb player is S.O.L. for not paying attention.

 

And I've seen Developers do a fine job in that avenue. More to the point: I've seen the very developers who are working on Project Eternity do it well. Icewind Dale 2. The Holy Avenger party battle. Each one of the Enemies for that fight had their own specific set of immunities, vunerabilities, and attack modes. A player who didn't bother to read the storied item description/Journal they found in Dragon's Eye, ended up in big, big trouble in that fight. On the other hand, someone who took their time, read the lore, read the journals, ended up getting enough information to formulate a winning game plan --- and relevantly, they got that information well ahead of time, so that they could prepare the right spells, weapons and items for the battle.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Stun

[Shevek]

Knock and its old friends spider climb and invisibility are part of a classic family of spells that made rogue and thief players say, "Hey, why do I exist?" I don't believe their inclusion in pre-4E editions of D&D and AD&D was a great thing. That sort of spell design is good if you're making a game specifically about how awesomely powerful wizards are (e.g. Ars Magica), but I don't think it's good in a class-based system where the classes are supposed to have different strengths and weaknesses.

 

Very good points. I have to agree with you there.

[metiman]

I find it hard to believe that a pure Vancian system could even be used considering the only real thing we know about the setting is that magic runs on soul power.

 

Do you have a link for that? I don't recall reading that at all.