The Vancomancer by David Guyll is so much more fun than the Wizard in the core book.

The Vancomancer by David Guyll is so much more fun than the Wizard in the core book.

The Vancomancer by David Guyll is so much more fun than the Wizard in the core book. Would love to see him and Melissa interpret some other core archetypes with a similar approach (inspired by “Appendix N” without overt 1st Ed. pastiche). 

5 thoughts on “The Vancomancer by David Guyll is so much more fun than the Wizard in the core book.”

  1. Have you compared it to the Mage, at all?  I’m trying to figure out what classes to allow for my campaign, and I’m really struggling with magic systems.  I’m just not sure if I like Vancian magic…

  2. Let me start off by clarifying that D&D magic is often called “Vancian,”  but it’s pretty divorced from how magic is portrayed in the actual Dying Earth novels. So don’t let “D&D magic” put you off checking out this playbook which is really fun, with a good balance of capabilities/limitations that keep it from overshadowing others, and cleaves closer to how Jack Vance depicts wizards.

    Having GMed for a Mage, I would put in the pro column that it never runs out of things to do with magic. However I felt overall it was kind of kludgy. The distinction between “Cast a Spell” and “Black Magic” is not often clear in the fiction. “Foci” are more limiting than they are freeing (everyone I have seen picks Dragon because fireball, but then your “Cast a Spell” is really nerf when you can’t be subtle). And it tends to hog the spotlight since it can solve literally any problem (with a roll that you’re probably +3 because why wouldn’t you stack INT).

    Favorite thing about the Vancomancer is that while there is a list of spells provided (most of which are quite awesome, and culled from the actual novels), the “Spell Research” move just says “when you research a new spell, tell the GM what you want it to do, and they will tell you what you have to do/where you have to go to find it.” Neverending font of adventures! And implicit in that statement is that spells can do whatever you want, if you’re willing to work for them.  

  3. I had the same issue GMing for a Mage (the player constantly rolled at +3, solving every problem with a spell before the rest of the party could act), which has left me reluctant to have them in any games since.

    Someone on Reddit just pointed out, however, that the wording of Cast a Spell is “When you weave a spell to HELP solve a problem”, which serves as an inherent limitation on the move by essentially requiring the spell to be a part of the solution, rather than the entire solution.

    Sorry to hijack the original discussion!

Comments are closed.