[merged] Vancian Magic System and cooldowns

[Merin]

But Gifted1, the casters aren't "players". You play an entire party, not just one caster. As long as the party as a whole has things to do, the player will not be bored.

But game gives player an option to go solo. Then if your main character is caster, then you get bored.

 

If it is as bad as you are somewhat hinting at, you won't be bored...

you'll be dead.

[Infinitron]

But Gifted1, the casters aren't "players". You play an entire party, not just one caster. As long as the party as a whole has things to do, the player will not be bored.

But game gives player an option to go solo. Then if your main character is caster, then you get bored.

 

Solo play in a party-based game is a gimmick for players looking for an extra challenge. Anybody who's going to play solo will accept the price of a little boredom.

 

Besides, I can assure you that surviving an entire game with only a fragile mage is anything but boring.

[Elerond]

But Gifted1, the casters aren't "players". You play an entire party, not just one caster. As long as the party as a whole has things to do, the player will not be bored.

But game gives player an option to go solo. Then if your main character is caster, then you get bored.

 

Solo play in a party-based game is a gimmick for players looking for an extra challenge. Anybody who's going to play solo will accept the price of a little boredom.

 

Besides, I can assure you that surviving an entire game with only a fragile mage is anything but boring.

In BG it was very boring and in BG2 it was some what acceptable boring. Monk and assasin were much more entertaining to solo.

[mikayel]

They are against Vancian memorization "fire and forget" spell systems...

 

which D&D 3E's Bard and Sorcerer are NOT Vancian.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

I never mentioned Vancian casting in that post -- I mentioned people railing against D&D style casting by using D&D rules, unknowingly, as a refuting point. People referenced Chaos Chronicles and KotC as alternates, which are already covered in D&D.

 

It should be blatantly clear that the people developing this game, people who have already developed games using both Vancian and non-Vancian casting in D&D games, are intimately familiar with the Sorcerer's Spell-Points-per-level system. As such, people offering alternatives they do not properly understand in neither origin nor design shouldn't try to save the day with the same recurring comment over, and over, and over.

 

Please don't try to jump at my throat because you think you caught some mistake in my logic.

[mikayel]

 

In BG it was very boring and in BG2 it was some what acceptable boring. Monk and assasin were much more entertaining to solo.

 

You have an opinion, that's cool, but given that many would disagree -- let's just say that the game won't be tailor made to a single gamer's style, yeah?

 

Mages... boring in BG2... indeed... all the breach and pierce and support/debuff spells alone had people hitting pause and clicking through menus. And a Monk isn't boring? You just melee **** with the occasional quivering or stunning fist.

[Merin]

They are against Vancian memorization "fire and forget" spell systems...

 

which D&D 3E's Bard and Sorcerer are NOT Vancian.

I never mentioned Vancian casting in that post -- I mentioned people railing against D&D style casting by using D&D rules, unknowingly, as a refuting point.

 

For one - you said "if you don't know what the systems are or if you are only familiar with 2-3 games' style of magic systems"

 

I think they know what they are talking about, and you might not.

 

Project Eternity speaks about Infinity Engine games, refering back to specifically Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment. All use 2nd ED D&D - no Sorcerers nor Bards with non-Vancian casting, as you refer to. It is possible a lot of these people haven't played D&D outside of Infinity Engine games... but, regardless, when you brought up "bards and sorcerers" as being non-Vancian (yes, you didn't use the word Vancian, but you did say - "people keep using D&D Sorcerer and Bard casting rules in an effort to refute "D&D style casting"", and that's using non-Vancian against Vancian (memorization, "fire and forget")) you are referring to only 1 of 4 versions of D&D. 25 % of all versions of D&D. 1st, 2nd and most of 3rd had Vancian as the Arcane magic system.

 

They get what they are arguing against... you maybe don't?

 

Just from the first five pages of the thread, below, are quotes with "Vancian" being what they don't like, sometimes with relevant extra stuff left in the quote to show they are against "fire and forget" as I'm short-handing it. --

 

>quote name='Ausir' timestamp='1348082689' post='1196076'<

I think Vancian magic has been overdone in all the D&D games.

 

>quote name='WorstUsernameEver' timestamp='1348083385' post='1196109'<

I'm not a fan of Vancian in videogames (or in tabletop for that matter, but for markedly different reasons) because I always felt like it leads to either metagaming or discourages experimenting with different tactics with your casters.

 

>quote name='aluminiumtrioxid' timestamp='1348083795' post='1196134'<

Forgetting spells after using them is just plain stupid.

 

>quote name='ShadySands' timestamp='1348083876' post='1196145'<

Please no Vancian system. The only D&D game I could finish as a caster class was NWN2 as a warlock

 

>quote name='Monkcrab' timestamp='1348084553' post='1196180'<

Not a fan of Vancian.

 

>quote name='Enclave' timestamp='1348086002' post='1196230'<

I'm really not a fan of the Vancian system. I like systems where I have all my spells available to me to use at a moments notice.

 

>quote name='Merin' timestamp='1348086205' post='1196236'<

I don't hate "Vancian" magic (never heard this term, either, until 4E came out and people were complaining up a storm) but I'm not a fan.

"I have to re-read the same words every day, and the second I cast the spell - POOF - it's erased from my memory." Whatever.

 

>quote name='Golfcat' timestamp='1348089011' post='1196319'<

I also dislike vancian,

 

>quote name='Uwon de Toster' timestamp='1348091146' post='1196396'<

I never liked vancian system.

 

>quote name='Hagen' timestamp='1348095001' post='1196532'<

Vancian is probably my least favorite magic system.

 

>quote name='J.E. Sawyer' timestamp='1349105022' post='1217514'<

These things do not require a Vancian system, nor do they require the absence of cooldowns as a mechanic.

 

>quote name='Haerski' timestamp='1349108652' post='1217575'<

>quote name='kirottu' timestamp='1349106780' post='1217550'<

Isn't Vancian system effectively a cooldown system?

>/quote<

Basically yes. In vancian system you have to rest in tavern or other place where this is allowed to recharge your spells, while in usual cooldown system you'll have to wait certain time OR rest to recharge. Cooldown time usually depends on power of the spell. Only real difference is that in Vancian you have limited amount of spells to use before you rest again so prepare to run like crazy between tavern and dungeon. Same thing when you notice you forgot to memorize some spell you needed ----> Back to tavern. I honestly don't know why anyone prefers pure Vancian system in CRPGs.

>/quote<

 

>quote name='Dr. Explosion' timestamp='1349121243' post='1217753'<

I hope they do NOT include vancian magic; it's one of the few thing aboot D&D I cannot stand.

 

------

 

To be even clearer, here's me and Enclave discussing this very thing earlier...

 

What I suggest is that the spell uses per day is the same as the Vancian system, just you are not limited by what spells you have memorised. Now, I never played 3rd edition D&D but isn't this very similar to how the Sorcerer class played?

I can't speak exactly on 3rd ED, but in general... yes.

 

Sorcerers don't memorize - they have fewer spells, but they have "spell points" - or so many spells of each level they can cast per day. So if they have Magic Missile, Burning Hands and Sleep for 1st level spells and they can cast 4 1st level spells per day (4 level 1 spell points, as far as I'm concerned), they can cast 4 Magic Missiles or 4 Burning Hands or any combination of those 3 spells.

 

Better. Not great, but better.

 

Please don't try to jump at my throat because you think you caught some mistake in my logic.

 

I won't. You are mocking people for attacking D&D style casting with D&D style casting... which I'm not going to quite call a straw man here, I just think you might be confused.

 

Hence the "pot, meet kettle" comment about "not knowing what systems" are being discussed.

 

People aren't for or against D&D magic specifically... they are for or against Vancian magic. Or cooldowns.

 

That's what the poll and thread discussion are almost entirely about.

 

Not "all D&D magic."

 

But I'll concede the point if you prove me wrong on it. Find me, oh, three... find me three people on here who say a version of the paraphrase - "I hate D&D magic, they should use (description of 3E sorcerer and bard magic) instead of what D&D does!" Three will convince me that you had actual people and not a straw man you were arguing against.

 

Three quotes and I apologize. Heck, two and I'll concede you may have just exaggerated the problem.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Merin

[Infinitron]

Uh, but Baldur's Gate 2, probably the most popular of the Infinity Engine games, did have sorcerers.

 

Besides, it's not too much to expect people to have some general knowledge about what they're discussing.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Infinitron

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

Different strokes for different folks. If your idea of fun gameplay is to stand there doing nothing for several rounds until all conditions line up and then execute one action before standing there again doing nothing until those conditions line up again, rock on. To me, that would suck.

It's a party-based game. You would be busy executing the plan to herd your enemies to their deaths. Your mage character would be waiting, yes, but you wouldn't.

 

In a single-character game, though, yes, I would enjoy what you describe, though I understand that not everyone would. But that doesn't matter, because PE isn't a single-character game.

[mikayel]

Dear lord. First off, 2 of the 5 IE games featured sorcerers (BG 2 and IWD 2, IWD 2 even used 3E rules [in which sorcerers use spell-points-per-level]) unless you're arbitrarily choosing to ignore nearly half the games using this engine.

 

Secondly, multiple people referenced KotC's system and Chaos Chronicles' system as "alternatives" to Vancian casting when they are just D&D sorcerer rules that the devs already know about extremely well. If they had just posted "Maybe use sorcere/bard rules?" or "spell-points-per-level" I wouldn't have said anything, but instead the thread is full of people misrepresenting the system that they are attempting to support. If you want names, Tuco Benedicto (sorry if I mispelled that) mentions Chaos Chronicles repeatedly, and another poster a few pages back mentioned KotC style casting to which I responded "that's just bard style casting". As for the ridiculous strawman you built for me with the "I Hate D&D but looovvvveee this____" condition, forget it -- that's just ridiculous to even oblige.

 

My point, going back to my first post and avoiding this ridiculous quote-a-thon, is that if you are not even aware that the system you are championing "as an alternative" is already extremely well known to the developers and is in fact a subset of D&D casting, then perhaps just don't post?

 

Finally, I am not mocking people -- I am instead asking them to exercise restraint in posting things they are not entirely certain of.

Edited October 1, 2012 by mikayel

[Elerond]

In BG it was very boring and in BG2 it was some what acceptable boring. Monk and assasin were much more entertaining to solo.

 

You have an opinion, that's cool, but given that many would disagree -- let's just say that the game won't be tailor made to a single gamer's style, yeah?

 

Mages... boring in BG2... indeed... all the breach and pierce and support/debuff spells alone had people hitting pause and clicking through menus. And a Monk isn't boring? You just melee **** with the occasional quivering or stunning fist.

 

Mage in BG when you solo. You throw your couple spells on your enemy and then you run and run and sometime try hit enemy with you sling or darts and then you run some more as you did't hit. Some where on 5th level enemies don't kill you with first two hits, but still fights are mostly you running.

 

In BG2 your awesome magic can usually kill slower level enemies before you must start running. But thanks god there is Melf's Minute Meteors they make fighting some what tolerable, but still it is mostly running.

 

Monk don't die so easily in combat and he can kill enemies quite effectively so combats are not so bothersome with it than it is with mage. With assassin you use traps, poison and sneaking and also quite lot of running, but still I liked it more than my mage play through.

[mikayel]

Clearly then you and I play the game very differently sir, for I never ran into those problems. Then again, why limit yourself to a single class when you can dual-class or multi-class? Soloing BG 1 as a wizard is harder, I agree, but that's because of the way the class is built -- this is something that you know going into the game and is part of that extra challenge when you choose to solo as a wizard.

 

Think of it as the rite of initiation that a young novitiate goes through to learn of the world. At first the world is strange, unforgiving, and alien... but over time he learns the way things work, how to survive, how to make money and find work, and in time develops those skills until the formerly scary world is just another place that he has conquered. That'd be something like going from level 1 wizard to level 7 wizard, which isn't terribly difficult if you do some quests and not bother fighting gibberlings or xvarts.

 

Anyway, just because you didn't enjoy playing a solo mage doesn't mean others don't, and more to the point, just because a single class my not be the ideal class to solo a game in doesn't mean that it should be fundamentally revamped when originally conceived for a party based game.

Edited October 1, 2012 by mikayel

[Gfted1]

But Gifted1, the casters aren't "players". You play an entire party, not just one caster. As long as the party as a whole has things to do, the player will not be bored.

To be completly honest, no, I did not read all of your previous posts. I just picked up on the conversation on page 16 without reading the previous 15 pages. I will try to look back at your earlier posts.

let me spare you the effort. I described the system here:

http://forums.obsidi...80#entry1217563

...and mentioned it again at least two times now.

 

About the second part of your post... What Infinitron said.

 

Ah, I finally get what you guys were trying to say. And I disagree even more.

 

IMO, the player most closely identifies whith the character they roll. Sure, there is plenty to do in party management but they arent "your guy". The others were added by the developer to flesh out the party but the character you roll is the one you become most attached to and having that character standing there doing nothing would detract from my enjoyment.

[Tuco Benedicto]

Uh, but Baldur's Gate 2, probably the most popular of the Infinity Engine games, did have sorcerers.

Yeah, but on the other hand that's exactly the problem, in some sense: the fact that you need a specific class (sorcerer) to apply a maechanic that should be the basic one for every single caster.

You read me so far arguing (mostly) for the D&D approach, but you know what i don't like about memorization? The fact that some very interesting but bery specific and situational spells are most likely never going to be picked and memorized unless the player is already aware of what he will cross forward.

Even worse is how in that single, unique, specific circumstance where that quirk, weird spell could be useful, the player at first react like "Yeah, I know exactly how to deal with this" and one minute later he finds himself "Hell, no, it's not memorized", which can be highly annoying.

 

Anyway, generally speaking: yes, bards and sorcerers are just fine as concept.

[Metabot]

What about a spell crafting system where you can create different types of items that have a certain number of charges etc.?

[Tuco Benedicto]

IMO, the player most closely identifies whith the character they roll.

Of course they do.

That doesn't mean that the main character lives in a vacuum. You manage the main character with the rest of the party, not as a single entity.

 

What you are saying is essentially: "if my charater is a warrior and I hire a mage and a ranger, it's fine; if my character is a Mage, and I hire a warrior and a ranger, then it's boring because the mage it's me".

I'm sorry, but... How does it make any sense?

 

 

What about a spell crafting system where you can create different types of items that have a certain number of charges etc.?

i have honestly no idea about how this is supposed to be related to this thread.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Tuco Benedicto

[mikayel]

@Tuco Benedicto

 

See, I disagree, Wizard casting is more important than Sorcerer casting in many ways -- not the least of which is that a Wizard can prepare for any type of challenge by preparing the appropriate spells where-as a Sorcerer is always in a niche.

 

I'd compare it to Batman and Superman.

 

Batman has a multitude of gadgets that he brings along on whatever adventure that are fitting, made to counter his enemies, support his allies, and often get the job done in ways other than "bang, boom, kerplow". He is a Wizard. He sometimes runs out of some tools, and there are certain tools that are no-brainers to bring everywhere (grappling hook), but he fixes his arsenal per challenge.

 

Superman on the other hand has about 5 or 6 things he can do a whole lot and they're nearly all in the realm of destroying, bashing, cutting, or shattering -- however, throw him in a puzzle situation where he can't break or destroy his way through and he's useless. Superman is a sorcerer.

 

You get what I mean? Versatility over specialization. Now, if you want EVERY KNOWN SPELL to abide by the spell-points-per-level system like in KotC I'd just disagree because that'd make casters even more ridiculously overpowered than they already are. Clerics especially... jesus... a Favored Soul with full spell book (since clerics auto-get all spells on level ups)... I mean... why even bother making other classes?

Edited October 1, 2012 by mikayel

[Lohi]

Replaying Baldur's Gate now, and I must say, D&D magic system is just plain awful! Seriously, you start with ONE spell. You cast it and you're useless until you sleep again. This was maybe fine when you were in a pen paper game and never got more than a couple fights in an evening, but in a computer game it's awful. Now you're level 3, and woopdydoo, you hav 3 or 4 spells (depending on house rules, magic items, etc). Yes, I know magic users seem to get overpowered at high level, but the balance is just wrong. All classes in a game (any that have classes) should be fun at every single level, players should never have to struggle with beginning of a game with the hope that it gets better later.

 

What I'd like is "Other" here. Not really a mana pool (the concept is just too stereotypical I think). Have a power/energy/fatigue pool. You can blow it all in a big inefficient burst of magic, or have a lot of smaller attacks. If you run low it will regenerate over the course of the fight as well, it's just there to slow you down and from being overpowered. No need to rest overnight, or an hour, or even 10 minutes. Absolutely you should be recharged by the time you get to the next fight. Of course if it's been a long day or you're badly hurt then it regenerates much slower.

 

That is a magic user should play somewhat similar to a melee or ranged fighter. If a level 1 fighter can shoot 20 arrows one after the other limited only by agility and stamina, then a level 1 magic user should be able to do the equivalent and be limited by power or stamina. And when characters of any class run out of stamina they're not useless they just need to slow down the attacks and catch a breath (no potions unless you're in a hurry).

 

I'd like to see fewer "spells" (or really just magical effects as opposed to cooking recipes), and they vary when being cast from low power to high power, or change effect to be single target or multiple target, a one shot or a continuous effect, etc. Don't burden the player with an overload of information about magic, some game manuals have 3/4s or more devoted just to spells. Keep it simpler and accessible.

 

Arcane and divine should be the same thing. If you are going to split into two then why not split into 3 or 4 or 20? Never understood that binary divide, too much like medievalism, exoteric vs esoteric, too much like D&D.

[Merin]

First off, 2 of the 5 IE games featured sorcerers (BG 2 and IWD 2, IWD 2 even used 3E rules [in which sorcerers use spell-points-per-level]) unless you're arbitrarily choosing to ignore nearly half the games using this engine.

 

When I said "Project Eternity speaks about Infinity Engine games, refering back to specifically Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

I clearly meant what they keep saying, as on the KS front page here -

 

Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.

 

I read that to say Baldur's Gate 1, Icewind Dale 1 and Planescape: Torment. Not Baldur's Gate the series, Icewind Dale the series, etc.

 

BG 2 still used 2nd ED rules, regardless of Sorcerer in there ... IWD 2 did use a hybrid that moved most of the way into 3.0, sure.

 

But this is a digression. The thread is about Vancian and cool downs (or alternatives to such). And this "debate" on what you said is going to long. I've said my part. You, at best, misspoke. Unless you can point to the "confusion" you are speaking of, I think it rests solely with you.

 

Anyway, I'll stop derailing on this.

[Tuco Benedicto]

Mikayel, what you are arguing about is balance, not mechanics.

No one doubt a mage can be as useful or even more powerful compared to a sorcerer of the same level. The point is that the memorization mechanic is simply annoying.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Tuco Benedicto

[Infinitron]

Lohi:

D&D magic is meant to support a larger party, in which there is typically only one, maybe two mages at most. It's not bad, you're just doing it wrong.

 

Too many people have become spoiled and gotten used to the Dragon Age/MMO model. It's tragic, really.

 

So...

 

That is a magic user should play somewhat similar to a melee or ranged fighter. If a level 1 fighter can shoot 20 arrows one after the other limited only by agility and stamina, then a level 1 magic user should be able to do the equivalent and be limited by power or stamina.

 

Edited October 1, 2012 by Infinitron

[Metabot]

Hmm in many RPGs, most, when you're a low level you have a small number of abilities.

[mikayel]

Well, they are actually split further than that -- there are multiple schools within the two sections, and even then, Druids which are "divine" casters also get their own unique spells, as do Bards, Paladins, and Rangers.

 

So yeah, it is divided further. But the real reason they are divided as arcane and divine? Is because Arcane has casting penalties for armor and Divine doesn't, and some spells that are shared are attained at different levels.

[mikayel]

Mikayel, what you are arguing about is balance, not mechanics.

No one doubt a mage can be as useful or even more powerful compared to a sorcerer of the same level. The point is that the memorization mechanic is simply annoying.

 

I disagree, I think that memorization mechanic is a key difference to the way the two classes play (in fact, it's the single biggest difference) and as such it's not just a question of balance, but a question of use and place.

[Gfted1]

Of course they do.

That doesn't mean that the main character lives in a vacuum. You manage the main character with the rest of the party, not as a single entity.

 

What you are saying is essentially: "if my charater is a warrior and I hire a mage and a ranger, it's fine; if my character is a Mage, and I hire a warrior and a ranger, then it's boring because the mage it's me".

I'm sorry, but... How does it make any sense?

 

What? Where did I say anything remotely resembling that? If you were reading my posts as closely as you claim you would realize I am simply refuting the posts about caster classes hanging out in the back until the time is ripe to fire off their single spell before going back to doing nothing. Just so we can get back on track, I am equally opposed to any class doing nothing for several rounds.

[Tuco Benedicto]

I disagree, I think that memorization mechanic is a key difference to the way the two classes play (in fact, it's the single biggest difference) and as such it's not just a question of balance, but a question of use and place.

I know it's the single biggest difference *now*. What I'm arguing for is: get rid of the memorization mechanic, build all magic classes to work as sorcerers, build the difference between magic classes in some other different way, like giving them different spells or special abilities.