One point of comparison often brought up in discussion about Dungeons and Dragons in relation to other Fantasy roleplaying games is of course D&Ds magic system.

It is one of the more unique aspects of the game that often is one of the first things shed off or replaced when someone makes a heartbreaker or some contrary system, but why?

There is a great many reasons for why, some good, some bad, often the complaints are aimed from a position of ignorance to to exactly what is D&D’s magic system.

D&Ds magic system is what what a great many people in the OSR; and those familiar with Gyax’s Appendix N, call a Pseudo-Vancian or Neo-Vancian system, but they are derived from the work of Jack Vance and mainly his novel The Dying Earth

In short, pure Vancian magic proposes that the mathematical representation of something is equivalent to the physical thing in question.

Example, having a perfect mathematical representation of a dog, is the same as having the dog, and thus the dog is created per the dictum of Vancian theory.

In Jack Vance’s setting, wizards work their magic by storing massive formula’s in their head, holding all the variables simultaneously, with a gesture, or trigger phrase acting as the last variable to complete the spell. Thus completing the formula and by extension creating the effect!

Powerful wizards in Jack Vance’s setting were able to hold up to 4 spells, which was considered impressive, and indeed they were, such as the sphere of omnipotence, or the Excellent Prismatic Spray!

already we can see the influence that Jack Vance’s magic system has had on D&D, and where we get spell slots and spells from, different slots mapping to different informational loads, and different spells and their levels representing the mental tax required to cast them, as well by often spells of a lower level can be held or casted from higher slots.

Where later editions, if you had a 2nd level slot, you could use it to cast any of your 2nd level spells. Earlier editions were closer to Jack Vance’s system, in that you assigned a spell for a specific slot before hand.

In either case, D&D was never truly Vancian, it departed in a couple of specific ways, often narratively such as any of the settings which were tied into the overall meta-narrative of Planescape, often that setup magic spells were sourced from different planes, different spells coming from different planes, and for clerical magic, it comes from their deity.

D&D also mainly differed a great deal mechanically from Vancian magic. spells were repeatable, more reliable, less powerful than their pure Vancian cousins, and are often (especially recently) kind of generic.

But this article is not a defense of Vancian Magic by throwing D&D interpretation of it under the bus. No I very much intend to defend Pseudo-Vancian system on it’s own grounds as presented in the old school games, and to an extent even it’s modern incarnation.

Before we can defend, we must lay out some of the criticism often leveled at it.

  1. D&D magic doesn’t feel magical.
  2. D&D magic is too safe and reliable.
  3. D&D magic is unintuitive.
  4. D&D Magic results in the linear fighter vs quadratic wizard problem.
  5. D&D magic is too broad.

We’ll break these points one at a time.

Point 1 This is a double edged criticism often directed at magic systems, and of course a magic system should feel magical, at the same time, often the complaint can run the other way, make a magic system too soft, and then people complain there is no rules.

often this is a matter of preference, but in D&Ds case it’s more that the Vancian system has a “scientific” core assumption, being that it has repeatable, predictable results. I could rant all day about scientific models for magic, and some day that topic will get an article of it’s own.

I need to address Point 2 to really address the heart of Point 1 which that Vancian magic is reliable and safe.

It being reliable is one of the many reasons it also does not feel magical, unlike roll to cast systems, or dice pool magic, where there is risk of a backlash effect, or the spell going wild or other such odd and magical wonders.

What people tend to forget is D&D’s magic is dangerous and prone to error, it’s just more subtle, an example from ye olden days is the way Lightening bolt & Fireball use to work, lightening bolt use to bounce! This meant shooting it straight down a corridor could result in it bouncing right back in your face, or fireball, where depending on the volume of the room you casted in, it could double up in a distance and catch you in the blast.

My favorite example is the imprisonment spell which would imprison a target in stasis several miles beneath the earth, the reversal of this spell had the chance to let free 1d100 other prisons, which could be very bad! Or really cool depending.

The danger and fantastical elements of the spells were more on a per spell basis, then baked into the system as a whole.

But to be honest I find D&D’S magic system plenty magical, from it’s named and storied spells, like Bigy’s hand, tenser’s floating disk. the spells themselves invented and created for certain use cases, and thus baked into the world and setting of the early Greyhawk campaign, even down to the spell components, like requiring a copper coin for Detect thoughts (a penny for your thoughts?)

While the games magic overall is reliable, that is ignoring all the random and eclectic elements.

Often the issues of play culture are mistaken for the issues of the system, players typically are not encouraged or given guidelines to invent new spells for their DM’s campaign, nor has the modern play culture seem to embrace homebrewing and game design as a whole.

Point 3 is a bit harder to dispel, because to someone never having played D&D, it seems a bit hard to wrap ones mind around, more so as Video Games traditionally use mana systems, where spells have a mana cost.

the spell system was chosen for a precise reason, it’s very easy to adjust on the fly, you don’t need to rework or rip up the entire magic-user class simply because one of the spells in their arsenal is disrupting the game.

It also meant spells functioned not unlike items, follow with for a second on this one. If you imagined the spell slots as inventory places, then spells are just useful items with different inventory sizes, it’s much like how many OSR games handled encumbrance, making it slot based, as well spells had a weight and carrying load represented by slots.

I concede that explaining D&Ds magic system to a new comer is indeed a hard task however.

Point 4 is to me the most funny complaint, and is worth an article in it’s own right, though D&D is far from the game that most “suffers” from it.

But to show my hand early, I find linear fighter vs quadratic wizard to be a feature, not a bug.

The idea it does comes from two presuppositions I find really odd.

All classes must be equal at all times. In a scenario where both classes of equal level were fighting, they’d come out on top 50/50 Now nobody who is reasonable would actually argue neither of those things need to be the case, yet through their actions and other arguments they seem to implicitly believe it.

This goes into more of a separate idea regarding the balance and theory of design around the four core classes of OD&D and B/X but you’re not going into that.

Mainly people tend to forget in older D&D all the classes had different XP curves, and different rates of leveling, this meant Fighter often was a level or two ahead of wizard, and since wizards could carry less treasure, and at earlier levels couldn’t do much in combat once their spells were spent, they leveled very slowly.

by the time magic-users caught up they could suddenly race ahead in power, but it took awhile, and the focus of the game changes at higher levels, shifting from the dungeon crawl, to the domain level, thus the priority changes.

Fighters are starting kingdoms and building armies, Wizards are building towers and doing spell and planer research, yes a 1v1 high level Wizard is going to smoke a Fighter, but that assumes a fair fight with no outside factors, something that will never happen at domain level play…

Point 5 is the one I have the most sympathy for, because it’s pretty much true, D&D magic is too broad, and used in all cases to represent a magical tradition, druids, clerics, paladins, sorcereers, Wizards, all of them use spells and spell slots, they don’t feel terribly different regardless of the flavor or lore invoked to say they are.

and any attempt TSR or WOTC had made for a different magic system (such as psionics) often get boo’d and hissed at.

The Pseudo-Vancian magic of D&D is tried and true, and they say you shouldn’t fix what ain’t broken. At the same time it leads to the problem that all magic users don’t feel terribly different. Back in the days where there was one magical class called “magic-user,” that wasn’t a big deal, but the creators of the game have attempted to stretch the system places it wasn’t really designed to go.

Conclusion

With my rambling sort-of-not-essay over, I want to make it clear I am not a dye in the wool Grognard who thinks Vancian magic is the end all be all of casting, the fact of the matter better systems do exist.

My goal here was more to defend Vancian magic from a great deal of undeserved crap it gets from people who hate it merely because they are ill-informed or just simply like to dunk on D&D as a whole.

ChatGPT Certainly! Here are the corrections to your article:

One point of comparison often brought up in discussion about Dungeons and Dragons in relation to other Fantasy roleplaying games is, of course, D&D’s magic system.

It is one of the more unique aspects of the game that is often one of the first things shed off or replaced when someone makes a heartbreaker or some contrary system, but why?

There are a great many reasons for why, some good, some bad; often the complaints are aimed from a position of ignorance regarding what D&D’s magic system is.

D&D’s magic system is what many people in the OSR, and those familiar with Gygax’s Appendix N, call a Pseudo-Vancian or Neo-Vancian system. These are derived from the work of Jack Vance, mainly his novel The Dying Earth.

In short, pure Vancian magic proposes that the mathematical representation of something is equivalent to the physical thing in question.

For example, having a perfect mathematical model of a dog is the same as having the dog, and thus, the dog is created per the dictum of Vancian theory.

In Jack Vance’s setting, wizards work their magic by storing massive formulas in their head, holding all the variables simultaneously, with a gesture or trigger phrase acting as the last variable to complete the spell. Thus completing the formula and, by extension, creating the effect!

Powerful wizards in Jack Vance’s setting were able to hold up to 4 spells, which was considered impressive, such as the Sphere of Omnipotence or the Excellent Prismatic Spray!

Already, we can see the influence that Jack Vance’s magic system has had on D&D, and where we get spell slots and spells from, with different slots mapping to different informational loads, and different spells and their levels representing the mental tax required to cast them. Also, often, spells of a lower level can be held or cast from higher slots.

Where later editions, if you had a 2nd level slot, you could use it to cast any of your 2nd level spells. Earlier editions were closer to Jack Vance’s system in that you assigned a spell for a specific slot beforehand.

In either case, D&D was never truly Vancian; it departed in a couple of specific ways, often narratively, such as any of the settings tied into the overall meta-narrative of Planescape, or the setup where magic spells were sourced from different planes, with different spells coming from different planes. For clerical magic, it comes from their deity.

D&D also mainly differed a great deal mechanically from Vancian magic. Spells were repeatable, more reliable, less powerful than their pure Vancian cousins, and are often (especially recently) kind of generic.

But this article is not a defense of Vancian Magic by throwing D&D’s interpretation of it under the bus. No, I very much intend to defend the Pseudo-Vancian system on its own grounds as presented in the old school games, and to an extent, even its modern incarnation.

Before we can defend, we must lay out some of the criticism often leveled at it.

  1. D&D magic doesn’t feel magical.
  2. D&D magic is too safe and reliable.
  3. D&D magic is unintuitive.
  4. D&D Magic results in the linear fighter vs quadratic wizard problem.
  5. D&D magic is too broad.
  6. We’ll break these points one at a time.

Point 1: This is a double-edged criticism often directed at magic systems. Of course, a magic system should feel magical. At the same time, the complaint can often run the other way. Make a magic system too soft, and then people complain there are no rules.

Often this is a matter of preference, but in D&D’s case, it’s more that the Vancian system has a “scientific” core assumption, being that it has repeatable, predictable results. I could rant all day about scientific models for magic, and someday that topic will get an article of its own.

I need to address Point 2 to really address the heart of Point 1, which is that Vancian magic is reliable and safe.

It being reliable is one of the many reasons it also doesn’t feel magical, unlike roll to cast systems or dice pool magic, where there is a risk of a backlash effect, or the spell going wild.

What people tend to forget is D&D’s magic is dangerous and prone to error; it’s just more subtle. An example from yesteryear is the way Lightning Bolt & Fireball used to work; Lightning Bolt used to bounce! This meant shooting it straight down a corridor could result in it bouncing right back in your face, or Fireball, where depending on the volume of the room you cast it in, it could double up in distance and catch you in the blast.

My favorite example is the Imprisonment spell, which would imprison a target in stasis several miles beneath the earth. The reversal of this spell had the chance to let free 1d100 other prisoners, which could be very bad! Or really cool depending.

The danger and fantastical elements of the spells were more on a per-spell basis than baked into the system as a whole.

But, to be honest, I find D&D’s magic system plenty magical, from its named and storied spells, like Bigby’s Hand, Tenser’s Floating Disk. The spells themselves were invented and created for certain use cases, and thus baked into the world and setting of the early Greyhawk campaigns, even down to the spell components, like requiring a copper coin for Detect Thoughts (a penny for your thoughts?)

While the game’s magic overall is reliable, that is ignoring all the random and eclectic elements.

Often the issues of play culture are mistaken for the issues of the system. Players typically are not encouraged or given guidelines to invent new spells for their DM’s campaigns, nor has the modern play culture seemed to embrace homebrewing and game design as a whole.

Point 3 is a bit harder to dispel because, to someone never having played D&D, it seems a bit hard to wrap one’s mind around. More so as video games traditionally use mana systems, where spells have a mana cost.

The spell system was chosen for a precise reason; it’s very easy to adjust on the fly. You don’t need to rework or rip up the entire magic-user class simply because one of the spells in their arsenal is disrupting the game.

It also meant spells functioned not unlike items; follow with me for a second on this one. If you imagine the spell slots as inventory spaces, then spells are just useful items with different inventory sizes. It’s much like how many OSR games handled encumbrance, making it slot-based. Also, spells had a weight and carrying load represented by slots.

I concede that explaining D&D’s magic system to a newcomer is indeed a hard task, however.

Point 4 is to me the most funny complaint and is worth an article in its own right, though D&D is far from the game that most “suffers” from it.

But to show my hand early, I find the linear fighter vs quadratic wizard to be a feature, not a bug.

The idea it does comes from two presuppositions I find really odd.

  1. All classes must be equal at all times.
  2. In a scenario where both classes of equal level were fighting, they’d come out on top 50/50.

Now, nobody who is reasonable would actually argue neither of those things need to be the case, yet through their actions and other arguments, they seem to implicitly believe it.

This goes into more of a separate idea regarding the balance and theory of design around the four core classes of OD&D and B/X, but you’re not going into that.

Mainly, people tend to forget in older D&D all the classes had different XP curves and different rates of leveling. This meant Fighters often were a level or two ahead of wizards, and since wizards could carry less treasure and at earlier levels couldn’t do much in combat once their spells were spent, they leveled very slowly.

By the time magic-users caught up, they could suddenly race ahead in power, but it took awhile, and the focus of the game changes at higher levels, shifting from the dungeon crawl to the domain level. Thus, the priority changes.

Fighters are starting kingdoms and building armies; Wizards are building towers and doing spell and planar research. Yes, a 1v1 high-level Wizard is going to smoke a Fighter, but that assumes a fair fight with no outside factors, something that will never happen at domain level play…

Point 5 is the one I have the most sympathy for because it’s pretty much true. D&D magic is too broad and used in all cases to represent a magical tradition. Druids, clerics, paladins, sorcerers, Wizards, all of them use spells and spell slots. They don’t feel terribly different regardless of the flavor or lore invoked to say they are.

Any attempt TSR or WOTC has made for a different magic system (such as psionics) often gets booed and hissed at.

The Pseudo-Vancian magic of D&D is tried and true, and they say you shouldn’t fix what ain’t broken. At the same time, it leads to the problem that all magic users don’t feel terribly different. Back in the days where there was one magical class called “magic-user,” that wasn’t a big deal, but the creators of the game have attempted to stretch the system places it wasn’t really designed to go.

Conclusion:

With my rambling sort-of-not-essay over, I want to make it clear I am not a dyed-in-the-wool Grognard who thinks Vancian magic is the end-all-be-all of casting; the fact of the matter is better systems do exist.

My goal here was more to defend Vancian magic from a great deal of undeserved crap it gets from people who hate it merely because they are ill-informed or just simply like to dunk on D&D as a whole.