More Vance than Vancian

Regarding Jeff's comments on this, I look at the evolution of my own magic system and think it's now actually more in the spirit of Vance's Dying Earth novels than the standard so-called "Vancian" system. I still believe that magic is the one part of the D&D rules as written (any edition) that most strongly needs a revamp, in the name of creativity and crazy fun.


* No multiple copies spells memorized ("Turjan pressed into his head ... four Magic Missiles, two Webs and a Fireball in a pear tree.."? I don't think so.) This removes the conflict between pre-memorization and creative use, especially as I'm being more generous with spell slots at 1st level. Perhaps a *different version* of, say, Magic Missile is one of the most prized magical treasures ... but this is as it should be.

* "Push your luck" effects. I am now letting casters try to cast spells above their level, making a difficult Mind save modified by their level vs. the spell's level and any Wisdom modifier (basically, 15 or more on d20). If they fail, they suffer a gnomish mishap. Basically, a more streamlined version of what the DCC RPG (remember that?) was going for. I might also allow the same risky mechanic for multiple castings of the same memorized spell. Magic is danger - not spray-on, EZ-bake sorcery!

This works for me, anyway, and I think my players appreciate it too.

Another Simpler DCC Idea: Wild & Critical Spells

So it seems the Mighty Deeds (why did I think Feats?) commentary and replacement rule was well received. Here's another idea for taking a complex rule from Goodman's Dungeon Crawl Classics game, and making it more modular and compatible with the standard run of D&D clones and variants.

Via LevinLight Wiki

Instead of having a separate table for wacky results for each spell, why not have the wacky results be ... other spells?

You can get more extreme with this, in terms of abandoning the spell slot system, but I want to work this out sticking as closely to the classic fire-and-forget casting system as possible. Another insight: "no result" is boring and frustrating for spellcasters. So I'm just excluding it as a possibility.

Whenever a magic-user is going to cast a spell, before the player has stated the targeting and area of the spell, roll d20.

The spell goes wild on a 1 if the caster can use spells of a higher level than the one being cast, or a 1-2 if the spell is of the caster's highest level. Add 1 to this wild range for every 2 points the caster's Wisdom is below 9, and subtract 1 if the caster's Wisdom is 13 or above.

The spell goes critical on a 20, a 19-20 if the caster's Wisdom is below 9, and 18-20 if it is below 5. There is no chance to go critical if Wisdom is 13 or above. Yes, magic-users may want to lose Wisdom to become more powerful and random, which is why some spend so much time delving into secrets of forbidden knowledge (insert sanity loss=wisdom loss system here).

Wild Spell: Roll at random on the list of magic-user spells for that level. The magic-user casts that spell instead, whether or not he or she knows it, but may target it at will. If you rolled by chance the spell the magic-user was trying to cast in the first place, the spell escalates; go to the next highest level, the magic-user picks a spell that will not be cast, and roll on that spell level table to find out the spell that is cast. If the spell picked is rolled, escalate to the next highest level, and so on.

A creative DM may have some of the spell's effect or style influenced by the spell originally cast. For example, a magic-user trying to cast Web who casts ESP instead may find that cobwebs appear on the walls, that shout out and echo the thoughts of the closest sentient being.

Critical Spell: Roll 2d6 and take the lower:
1: The spell is cast with double range, double duration, + 1 to each damage die, and -2 to saving throw.
2: The spell, once cast, is replaced in memory by a random spell of the same level.
3: The spell is cast with double effect (area or damage, for example) or with -4 to saving throw.
4: The spell is cast without using it up in memory.
5: The spell has its usual effect plus the effect of a spell the caster chooses of the same level or 1 level higher.
6: Roll twice, and 6 has no effect.

I think this system has a good chance to walk the line between player boredom and total player screwage. Instead of "you fail" it's more like "hey, make the most of Rope Trick right now."

Spells and Creativity

The magic system is probably the thing that's the least to my liking in older editions of D&D. After, all what attracts me to the old school ways is the emphasis on player creativity and problem solving. Then I face the prospect of a spell system that almost seems designed to smother creativity. It's just perverse to force pre-memorization of spells, from a list where one or two each level stand out as clearly optimal in combat, at the same time you are encouraging players to come up with crazy solutions in every other area using ropes, spikes, mules, catnip and what have you.

I actually don't have a beef with Vancian magic. I wish the magic was Vancian. Check out Turjan of Miir. Not for him 3x Sleep, 2x Web, 1x Fireball. After all, if you are physically forcing spells into your head, it's absurd to memorize the same thing twice. So one fix is to slightly up the number of spells - maybe, for instance, first-level casters with a decent prime requisite get two - but make each one be different. That would really enforce creativity and variety.

Or we can go with later-period Vancian (Rhialto the Marvellous, written many years after the first printing of D&D), and assume that magic is done through spirit-world intermediaries of various ranks, which would handily explain the levels system. Any rules, really, can be justified with an image of fractious, bureaucratically minded minions following absurd empyrean regulations. So why not have it be a matter of using spell slots instead of pre-memorizing spells, with free choice at each use? In other words, everyone's a cleric. That allows the odd Comprehend Languages to be pulled out at the right time when it would really save the party's bacon.

I'll mull over those possibilities and maybe take your comments. I don't want to use a spell point system - that just increases the bias toward your most effective spells across levels. But here is the other principle I want to use in spell design.

Same object, two descriptions.

"It's a tool for brushing your teeth."

"It's a plastic handle about five inches long with a narrow head. On the head are mounted a thick array of plastic bristles."

I think you'll see that the more concrete description opens more room for creativity. Instead of being constrained by the function, the material description invites you to think of all kinds of uses for it - scrubbing small places, melting the handle and using it as a spoon ...

Likewise for

"This spell strikes an enemy within 60 feet unerringly for 1d4 damage"

"This spell imparts great force to a pebble-sized object, causing it to streak from one's hand for up to 60 feet. It always hits its target; if the target is alive, it does 1d4 damage to it."

This is what I want in my spell descriptions and designs. Spells that expand role-playing and problem-solving rather than shutting them down. You may think I have some culprit spells in mind and you are right. But that's for another time.