[merged] Vancian Magic System and cooldowns

[Stun]

In tabletop games, the "Vancian" systems do make strategic gameplay more important, but a lot of that is lost in a game with reloading. Especially if the choice of spells has a dramatic effect on efficacy (e.g. did you memorize dimensional anchor before fighting creatures that are constantly teleporting all over the battlefield), failure to select the "right" ones can result in catastrophic failure. In the absence of information required to make informed decisions, those choices aren't strategic; they're just guesses. After a reload, they're meta-strategic, but I doubt most players feel clever for making a retrospectively obvious choice.

 

I was saying just this earlier.

 

Sure the game could tell you what to expect later, but really that cannot be true in all circumstances otherwise the game itself is just giving away what's going to be happening.

 

Having your full spell library available to you at all times really is the best choice.

Didn't we already cover this? Magic should never be so vital in a campaign that failure to bring a mage, with the precise set of spells for an encounter, leads to catostrophic failure.

 

The whole point in 'strategy' is to be able to find a way to win, with the tools you have, when presented with a problem. If the game makes victory impossible without the use of a specific set of spells, then the flaw is with the game itself, not the magic system it's using. And in the context of that, it doesn't make a lick of difference if its magic system is vancian or if it's your system of "everyone knows every spell!".

Edited September 30, 2012 by Stun

[mikayel]

My overly long thoughts:

 

Based on the recurrence of that prepared "suite" comment it would seem they have their magic system more or less in mind. Personally, I'm OK with skipping on the Vancian system, but I feel most people's complaints are... uhh misguided, I guess would be the word?

 

"You don't know what to expect, and thus you may pre-select bad spells" -- that's the whole point of adventuring right? The goal of a wizard (in contrast to a sorcerer) is that they have the versatility to be prepared for anything via a larger spell selection, and as such they shouldn't be wading into a dungeon with all of their 3rd level slots full of fireball. They should include utility spells and multiple energy type attack spells, as well as support and crowd control spells. The whole point is to be prepared for a multitude of situations. If you're choosing to limit yourself then... well, learn to play better I guess?

 

"I just rest after every battle" -- if you want the game system to stop you from using munchkin tactics, then ok -- just institute a very basic timer that doesn't allow you to rest immediately after resting. Divine Divinity did it, and it worked pretty well. There could be an in-game counter that doesn't let your characters rest unless they either take a heinous amount of damage and/or a certain amount of in-game hours have passed (I am assuming the game will have night/day cycles and so a timer will already be in place). Make resting in dungeons a no-go, it seems suicidal to go into a were-badger Warren and just think "whelp, we don't know what's past that corner to let's set up camp here for 8 hours". The IE style of "you have been beset by monsters" works fine too so long as there's a VERY HIGH RATE of that happening, but I'd also encourage things like the monsters not waking you up until its too late and you're already dead (coup de grace). Also, this rest-abuse is common in any game system -- mana systems that feature full mana regen after resting are still in this category, meaning this is not a Vancian-unique pitfall.

 

"Mana has more versatility" -- mana systems traditionally have far fewer spells because of the potential abuse they can give, especially if it turns into a potion-chugging fest. Can you imagine having every D&D spell and being able to cast any of them and slamming mana potions? Chain-binding meteor storm, abi-dalzim's, and friggin summon spells... blah. This could easily turn into late-game jRPG where you just blast your uber-spell and then chug the now-extremely-affordable mana potions. Now, if potions and other mana restoration is handled in a way that limits how FAST you can regenerate mana then ok. Something perhaps like the Witcher where mana potions just increased the regeneration rate and couldn't be stacked, so either you had to have the character build to speed it up even more or just wait it out for mana regen. I'd even be ok with something like Kult's HP system where quickly restoring HP led to a lower max hp (temporarily, until you rested) than waiting for it to go very low -- thus risking dying before you can heal.

Edited September 30, 2012 by mikayel

[FlintlockJazz]

In tabletop games, the "Vancian" systems do make strategic gameplay more important, but a lot of that is lost in a game with reloading. Especially if the choice of spells has a dramatic effect on efficacy (e.g. did you memorize dimensional anchor before fighting creatures that are constantly teleporting all over the battlefield), failure to select the "right" ones can result in catastrophic failure. In the absence of information required to make informed decisions, those choices aren't strategic; they're just guesses. After a reload, they're meta-strategic, but I doubt most players feel clever for making a retrospectively obvious choice.

 

I was saying just this earlier.

 

Sure the game could tell you what to expect later, but really that cannot be true in all circumstances otherwise the game itself is just giving away what's going to be happening.

 

Having your full spell library available to you at all times really is the best choice.

Didn't we already cover this? Magic should never be so vital in a campaign that failure to bring a mage, with the precise set of spells for an encounter, leads to catostrophic failure.

 

The whole point in 'strategy' is to be able to find a way to win, with the tools you have, when presented with a problem. If the game makes victory impossible without the use of a specific set of spells, then the flaw is with the game itself, not the magic system it's using. And in the context of that, it doesn't make a lick of difference if its magic system is vancian or if it's your system of "everyone knows every spell!".

 

If magic is not essential to get the right spells for the situation then wouldn't we end up with people just selecting the same spells all the time rather than bothering to guess what they need for upcoming battles? They'll find the 'best' spells to take and leave it at that, in which case it won't matter whether it's Vancian or Mana-based, people will just load up on Magic Missle.

Edited September 30, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[mikayel]

You may want to edit that post: "if magic is not essential for the right spells" -- what?

[Stun]

If magic is not essential to get the right spells for the situation then wouldn't we end up with people just selecting the same spells all the time rather than bothering to guess what they need for upcoming battles? They'll find the 'best' spells to take and leave it at that, in which case it won't matter whether it's Vancian or Mana-based, people will just load up on Magic Missle.

You mean the right tools? No, if Magic is not an essential tool for the situation, then we'd end up getting the full gamut of diverse strategies. Some people will report being able to win encounter X without using magic, while others will report being able to win that same encounter by using Spell x, then Spell y. In the meantime, whether or not the spell system was vancian has suddenly become irrelevant.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Stun

[mikayel]

Yes, having the perfect game would indeed be perfect. But the reason why we are discussing mechanics is because whether or not you can sneak, stab, talk, finesse, item, story-line, or magic your way through game-encounters is irrelevant when it comes down to casting spells, for which you still need a working system that is not full of holes.

Edited September 30, 2012 by mikayel

[Shadowless]

I have to say it is one of my fears that there will be a lacking amount of spell options without a vancian system, sure there are some games that have a large variety of spells with the mana pool system (arcanum for one) but the vast majority that use it seem to lack a great variety IMO. I would be most comfortable wih a vancian system or one similar to how the sorcerer worked with a limited number you can use per spell level. I don't want a game where i eventually ignore the first spells I got nor one where spells are forced to continually get stronger to the point that a cantrip has around the same power as a seventh level spell. Mana systems to me often become Super strong spell, chug potion, super strong spell, chug potion etc.

 

I enjoy messing up and realizing I have made a terrible mistake when that cave is filled with fire giants and the vast majority of my memorized spells happen to be fire based, it is FUN to try and win a battle at a severe disadvantage and yes the vancian system can indeed lead to people just constantly clicking sleep but I prefer to limit myself and only allow it in safe locations or areas I have cleared, I don't like resting before a bossfight and making it a fairly simple battle. These are of course my personal opinions and probably opinions of a small minority but when I hear about a game being made in homage to the great IE games I think of the vancian type magic system and not a mana or cooldown based one. The vancian system makes me value each and every spell I have which I just don't find in other systems

Edited September 30, 2012 by Shadowless

[diablo169]

Vancian all the way please, I've yet to see a mana based system i've liked in a CRPG.

[ogrezilla]

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

In theory, I agree. I love how you have to plan ahead and pick your spells in the Vancian magic system. What I hate is how the horrible rest system in most of the old games completely ruins it.

Edited September 30, 2012 by ogrezilla

[FlintlockJazz]

If magic is not essential to get the right spells for the situation then wouldn't we end up with people just selecting the same spells all the time rather than bothering to guess what they need for upcoming battles? They'll find the 'best' spells to take and leave it at that, in which case it won't matter whether it's Vancian or Mana-based, people will just load up on Magic Missle.

You mean the right tools? No, if Magic is not an essential tool for the situation, then we'd end up getting the full gamut of diverse strategies. Some people will report being able to win encounter X without using magic, while others will report being able to win that same encounter by using Spell x, then Spell y. In the meantime, whether or not the spell system was vancian has suddenly become irrelevant.

 

I agree with what you are saying, but if someone is taking a spellcaster in a Vancian system they are going to need to find that getting the right selection of spells for the situation is important (not one set of spells but one for the specific strategy for the specific enemy) otherwise the requirement of picking your spells first to be able to cast them is going to result in people just picking their favourite spells again and again and neglecting other spells. This is why I am not keen on a Vancian system in a cRPG, I'd prefer players to have access to their whole spellbook so that those special spells that are often only used in certain situations still get a chance to come out and play sometimes.

[FlintlockJazz]

I think I've worked out what exactly it is that I dislike about Vancian magic so much: it's like 'speccing' your mage or cleric. You pick the abilities your character in an MMO has for a certain role, and then when you want to change your role you go through the respec, Vancian magic is like that for me except even worse as you get a 'free' respec after every rest!

[Stun]

Even in the most well done of non-vancian systems, you will almost always still see people settling on a few spells, and then using them over and over, while ignoring the rest. What you're describing isn't the "pitfalls" of a vancian system. it's the nature of gamers. We're creatures of habit.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Stun

[mikayel]

Umm... so why don't you just use the spell then? Why do you need a hindsight safety net? Pick spells for how interesting and useful they might be, and use them as according to what you expect to face. If you're going into a volcano, then obviously don't pick fire spells. If you are in the ice fortress, then skip out on cold spells.

 

It's... it's really not that hard. I mean, most dungeons literally paint you a picture of what kind of enemies you are facing well before its "too late" to fix your tactics.

[Skie Nightfall]

I like the Vancian system but it needs a lot of lore around it to fit a setting (e.g. I liked how it was explained in the DragonLance novels).

Regardless of how much I like it, it fails in computer games, because there's no place for most spells at all. Even a lot of spells that did make it to BG2 are useless (BG1 was small scale anyway). Most use was combat oriented spells.

 

This brings me to another point, no matter what magic system they end up using, I hope they but general and toolkit spells in and have a use to them! Really, I think the Quest for Glory series had the best variety of useful magic.

 

A Mana system could work, in my opinion, if it doesn't regenerates. Combine it with the elements from Vancian, that you'd have to rest to recover your "mana". It also doesn't have to recover fully! It should be like health, making you think carefully about how you use it, without having to memorize specific spells.

 

A systems like ad&d sorcerer could also work. Having a certain amount of spells you can cast from each "power level".

[FlintlockJazz]

Even in the most well done of non-vancian systems, you will almost always still see people settling on a few spells, and then using them over and over, while ignoring the rest. What you're describing isn't the "pitfalls" of a vancian system. it's the nature of gamers. We're creatures of habit.

 

True, but it'll be more likely that you will use them if they are still accessible as long as you have enough mana/soul/whatever it is that fuels spells in the setting. That's pretty much my stance anyway, it's not perfect but it's what I like.

 

I like the Vancian system but it needs a lot of lore around it to fit a setting (e.g. I liked how it was explained in the DragonLance novels).

Regardless of how much I like it, it fails in computer games, because there's no place for most spells at all. Even a lot of spells that did make it to BG2 are useless (BG1 was small scale anyway). Most use was combat oriented spells.

 

This brings me to another point, no matter what magic system they end up using, I hope they but general and toolkit spells in and have a use to them! Really, I think the Quest for Glory series had the best variety of useful magic.

 

A Mana system could work, in my opinion, if it doesn't regenerates. Combine it with the elements from Vancian, that you'd have to rest to recover your "mana". It also doesn't have to recover fully! It should be like health, making you think carefully about how you use it, without having to memorize specific spells.

 

A systems like ad&d sorcerer could also work. Having a certain amount of spells you can cast from each "power level".

 

I'd love for there to be general and toolkit spells. In most systems magic seems to be solely about combat and/or enchanting items for combat, there are some in tabletop that have well-rounded magic systems that have roles for more mundane things, be interesting to see it done well in a cRPG. Dunno if they'll manage it but I guess that if spells require character points to be spent on them rather than just learning them from scrolls (I prefer the latter, love collecting new spells and adding them to my spellbook but I guess it depends on balance) then we may hopefully get non-combat spells as options for mages' non-combat skills (instead of buying up your persuasion skills the mage learns new influence spells, etc).

Edited September 30, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[TrashMan]

Slow magic point regeneration works quite well in Wizardry, limiting spell use. Magic points return over several in-game hours - not seconds. Spell domains help as well, with different magic points for different spell types. Not all magic regen systems are broken or lacking for strategy or tactics, really. And I am not saying Obsidian should emulate ye olde Wizardry series (look at Arcanum!)... but, honestly, not everything need be centred on D&D -- although I do understand the majority of people on this forum are for D&D RPGs only and want nothing but that system. RPGs have employed a wide range of systems from memorizing spells to magic rune gestures to magic points to stamina points or a mix of these or something new entirely.

 

As a hardcore roleplayer, I don't despise having to run away (speed is key for my characters :3), but I do despise having to run away to hide in a section of the dungeon to rest to memorize spells for the encounter. While I'm resting, I'm rarely attacked by enemies, and - more strangely - the particular enemies I've run away from did not search for my party when I basically just ran around the corner! o_O What? Suspension of disbelief, much? Even if the AI was improved to follow me, I bet I could still run outside the dungeon, rest in the wilderness around the corner then return. That's not a good system or realistic: that's monotonous play.

 

Magic points allows for strategic play by forcing the player to pace their use of spells.

Memorization allows for strategic play by forcing the player to re-load or run away and rest.

 

Not much difference. What's stopign a palyer form simpyl resting untill all of his magic points are full? Unless oyu prevent them, they will always want to enter battles fully prepared.

 

In the end no read difference.

 

Face it - any sistem with resolves around a regenerating resurce can be "chated" around by resting. Ironicly I don't see it as a big problem. If the player wants to go back to town and rest, that is his decision.

[Delterius]

It is a 'mana' system with regeneration, yes. But the rate of mana regeneration is incredibly important: too fast regen and there is no strategy or tactics; too slow regen and there is strategy but little tactics. It's a fine line to balance.

 

This is true, but I'd pose that in a vancian system you can easily tell just how much magic the player might have at his disposal, and balance the entire game around it. No matter how slow your mana regeneration is, you can easily wait a while longer to cast again - unless you introduce a timer (and in such a overaching, game/adventure wide, manner that is sure to garner opposition from the community).

 

Fixing the rest system seems easier than balancing the the mana regeneration.

 

Umm... so why don't you just use the spell then? Why do you need a hindsight safety net? Pick spells for how interesting and useful they might be, and use them as according to what you expect to face. If you're going into a volcano, then obviously don't pick fire spells. If you are in the ice fortress, then skip out on cold spells.

 

Agreed. There are many spells that are simply a no-brainer to carry around, because at one point during your adventurer there might be a spellcaster and busting his protections is important (BG2 example); and the game has ways to hint at the player when, say, 'trolls inhabit the area ahead so do bring that fire/acid weapon enchantment'. But I do think that games often neglect to make certain things predictable.

 

.

.

.

 

It appears that Vancian's not on the table. I am, however, satisfied. From what I've seen, I believe the designer is aware of the strategic implications a Vancian system brings into the table and the limitations the player must deal with (a decent rest limiter) lest everything becomes pointless. So I look forward to the magic system in the works.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Delterius

[Kaldurenik]

Well what about a system that use all 3? A cost, the ability to select spells and then select how strong the spell itself should be?

[Jandor]

Cooldowns feel artificial, casting times achieve the same thing while feeling more natural. It still takes 20, 30, 40, however many seconds to have a spell ready.

 

Have a mana (or soul) bar as well and we're pretty much there.

[TrashMan]

The problem with a mage having all spells avilable at all times is that that turns him into a uber-class.

A mages spell selection in D&D is HUGE. Immagine how D&D would go if mage had acess to all of them and can cast them whenever he wants?

 

Why bring a thief? A mage can cast True Seeing, Knock, Fly, Leviatate, Dimension Door, etc...

Why bring an archer? A mager can fireball, lighting blot, cloudkill or nuke na opponent from range in many ways.

Why bring a fighter? A mage can cast bulls strength, tensers transformation, mage armor, fire/ice shield, blur, shadow form and butcher in melee (do a sunburst or two).

 

 

The mage is so attractive becase he is so flexible. But he can't do it all at once. Without a limitation, the mage becomes an uber class that can do everything.

And also makes all other clases look boring by comparison...you havea 100 spell selection list while a fighter has 2-3 swings.

 

 

 

I really do hope they go with Fatigue system, because it really is the best compromise.

A cooldown system is a horrible idea. Utterly horrible.

Edited September 30, 2012 by TrashMan

[FlintlockJazz]

In the end of the day whatever system they go with I'll be happy with as long as it fits the lore. No shoving something in because everyone loves it if it doesn't fit the setting.

 

One method of controlling magic in a mana system that doesn't require rest would be to have mana pools regenerate after combat but during combat you only get what you started with and the mana pools themselves are quite limited in size, to avoid spamming of spells, instead limiting them to a few each combat, depending on how effective and powerful the spells in the system are. If the spells are designed so that the careful choice of which spell to use during combat for the current situation and/or enemy, with magic only being powerful if used right, then even better. All my own taste of course.

[Elerond]

I think mixed system could be way to go. For example, mages have limited capacity how many spells they can memorize, but they also have mana, which they can use to change memorized spell to other and mana cost could be determined how change spell needs. Like if spell is from the same school then mana cost for change could be small and cost would rise father we go from orginal school and to change spell to oppositing school would be most tasking. This costing system assume that there is typical circle of the magic schools, where there is opposing schools. And this system could reward those players who have prepared better or were just lucky by so that mage can spend his or her mana to restore spells back to his or her memory without resting. In this system mana regeneration time should be some what high or at least there should be no mana reg in combat, to prevent too much resorting on it.

 

This system is somewhat similar with that system which Josh metioned.

[FlintlockJazz]

The problem with a amge havig all spells avilable at all times is that that turns him into a uber-class.

A mages spell selection in D&D is HUGE. Imagine how D&D would go if mage had acess to all of them and can cast them whenever he wants?

 

Why bring a thief? A mage cna cast True Seeing, Knock, Fly, Leviatate, Dimension Door, etc...

Why bring an archer? A mager can fireball, lighting blot, cloudkill or nuke na opponent from range in many ways.

Why bring a fighter? A mage can cast bulls strength, tensers transformation, mage armor, fire/ice shield, blur, shadow form and butcher in melee (do a sunburst or two).

 

 

The mage is so attractive becase he is so flexible. But he can't do it all at once. Without a limitation, the mage becomes an uber class that can do everything.

And also makes all other clases look boring by comparison...you havea 100 spell selection list while a fighter has 2-3 swings.

 

Depends on what spells are available and what restrictions the mage has. Any system can be horribly abused if not set up right.

[Grimlorn]

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.

What about the system in Knights of the Chalice and the first Wizardry games where you could learn all the spells, but had a limited number of spell points for each level of spells. So you might have 5 points for level 1 spells and 4 spell points for level 2 spells. Once you ran out of spell points you would have to rest. This gives you the ability to adapt on the fly by having the spells in your spell book, while also limiting you from wasting and overusing magic.

[Stun]

In the end of the day whatever system they go with I'll be happy with as long as it fits the lore. No shoving something in because everyone loves it if it doesn't fit the setting.

 

In the end, I too will be happy with any system they use ....UNLESS they settle for an action/DPS system that makes mages feel like nothing more than archers with colorful arrows. because nothing can be more dull and unimaginitive than that.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Stun