D&D 5th Edition New Legend and Lore is up! Magic Systems as DM Modules - Page 14


What's on your mind?

+ Log in or register to post
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314
Results 131 to 140 of 140
  1. #131
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    2,570
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Minigiant
    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    Mr Forgetful was explicitely the fluff in 1e and 2e due to a misapplication/partial application of the Dying Earth's magic. It's one of the reasins people detest Vancian Magic. 3e eased back on that fluff while not changing the system.

    I hate the Dying Earth fluff and replaced it with my own

    Wizards tattoo invisible arcane marks on themselves each day. When they cast spells, the marks disappear.

    Sorcerers are born with these markings in their body from their heritage. Some more might sponatoeusly appear later in life. The marks are permanent and sorcerers need only activate them
    My beard is hairy.

 

  • #132
    Registered User
    Guide (Lvl 11)



    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Akron
    Posts
    1,624
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Ratskinner
    Quote Originally Posted by Minigiant View Post
    You're not getting my point.

    My point was that character image and character casting resource don't have to correlate.

    What make a wizard a wizard to me the the understanding of the magic system. ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    No. You're missing mine. Which is that the D&D wizard isn't about understanding. He is about forgetfulness. He's about the one use trick. He's about performing magic by rote.

    Except that both fluff and mechanics matter. And Mr Forgetful does not match the fluff. Mr. Spell Master on the other hand matches the fluff of the spell master. Mechanics matter.
    I think the root of this argument was a change in the way D&D views magic that happened around 3e.

    Before 3e, there was a lot of fluff about Magic-Users "prepping" their spells, more than just "memorizing" them. He wasn't forgetful, he was using up magical "charges" that he built up during his study period. It wasn't a function of the Magic-User/Wizard, it was quirk in the function of magic when used by mortals. While that was basically the only game in town, that worked. 2e had many alternative spellcasters and specialist wizards, almost all of them worked the same way. The few that didn't were mostly niche classes from splat, that were often demonstrably "weaker" in their proficiency with magic.

    With 3e, though, you have multiple casting styles right in the core. It is no longer a function of magic fluff, but of class fluff. Then you have the problem of the forgetful wizard fluff. The game was no longer making any fluff claims about the nature of magic, only the nature of casters. I think its a subtle but profound shift of thinking that lead to magic/casting becoming far more sweeping, flexible, and reliable in general.

  • #133
    Registered User
    Guide (Lvl 11)



    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Akron
    Posts
    1,624
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Ratskinner
    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    No it isn't. That would be a spell point system.
    Not if spell energy comes in quanta of some sort....like levels. And the wizard has to charge the spell before casting. Which is an earlier ed conceit that 3e kinda got away from. There's character fluff, and magic fluff. Magic refluffery makes most of this entire debate moot.

  • #134
    Registered User
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,502
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews
    Cortex+ZEITGEISTWotBSI Defended The Walls!

    Ignore Neonchameleon
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_Nightwing View Post
    @Neonchameleon

    I think this would be easier if you just stated which mechanics you would prefer for each caster. I can't get a handle on what you see in the Wizard and Sorcerer. Do you want the Wizard to use the same mechanics as the Sorcerer - learning something so well they do it as well as an innate caster? Do you want any preparation/choice in advance for Wizards? I just don't understand your replies any more.
    The core problem is that D&D magic is almost effortless. If the sorceror is a wild talent, make him a wild talent. Make his magic wild - because as 3.5 stands, the sorceror has the most safe, sane, and controlled magic of any caster. Controlled and versatile magic should be the hallmarks of the wizard. (And I emphatically believe that the caps on spells known per level by a wizard were a good thing). If anything, of the primary casters, the wizard should have the least powerful spells - he can't simply open a channel to somewhere and let it all pour through. He needs to build his spells piece by piece.

    You can set the themes two ways. Either you can control how the sorceror casts his magic or you can control what he can cast.

    If the sorceror really is a wild caster I want him to either burn himself up, take backlash, have random effects, or the like. Random effects, hit point backlash, a chance for misfire. When a wild caster casts a spell you never know quite what is going to happen - and it's not going to be subtle but is going to be big.

    If the sorceror is a channeller (as the 4e sorceror is) then you make the spells reflect this (so a storm sorceror manipulates weather magic, an elementalist manipulates their element) and they channel that one thing. And channellers have big, powerful, but not that controlled effects. They are channelling the raw energy of (whatever) rather than carefully building it. And everything should be on the theme.

  • #135
    Registered User
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    Chris_Nightwing's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Basel, Switzerland
    Posts
    1,457
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Chris_Nightwing
    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    The core problem is that D&D magic is almost effortless. If the sorceror is a wild talent, make him a wild talent. Make his magic wild - because as 3.5 stands, the sorceror has the most safe, sane, and controlled magic of any caster. Controlled and versatile magic should be the hallmarks of the wizard. (And I emphatically believe that the caps on spells known per level by a wizard were a good thing). If anything, of the primary casters, the wizard should have the least powerful spells - he can't simply open a channel to somewhere and let it all pour through. He needs to build his spells piece by piece.

    You can set the themes two ways. Either you can control how the sorceror casts his magic or you can control what he can cast.

    If the sorceror really is a wild caster I want him to either burn himself up, take backlash, have random effects, or the like. Random effects, hit point backlash, a chance for misfire. When a wild caster casts a spell you never know quite what is going to happen - and it's not going to be subtle but is going to be big.

    If the sorceror is a channeller (as the 4e sorceror is) then you make the spells reflect this (so a storm sorceror manipulates weather magic, an elementalist manipulates their element) and they channel that one thing. And channellers have big, powerful, but not that controlled effects. They are channelling the raw energy of (whatever) rather than carefully building it. And everything should be on the theme.
    Hah, interesting. I agree with you on the Sorcerer. Since they are supposed to be innate then in my mind their innate magic should heavily define them (rather than the nebulous bloodline, which is too Warlocky for my liking). I think there's room for both a Wild Sorcerer, who has access to most forms of magic at the cost of them being completely unreliable, and limit-themed Sorcerers such as elementalists and illusionists. I always liked the great wheel plane setup, and in that vein I would have Sorcerers act as the channelers you describe, with affinity for a particular plane. Wild Sorcerers would have access to many planes, but who knows which one connects when they use a particular ability - flaming hands could spew out earth or a gentle blast of air instead of nice burny fire.

    I don't think I mind if Wizards can learn any spell in theory, and I think their spellcasting should be planned in some manner, even if just by assigning points to particular spell schools. Mastery of schools at different levels would also be nice, but require a sort of separate skill subsystem as things stand.
    Everyone is weird, but those who are weird in the same way call themselves normal.

  • #136
    Registered User
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,502
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews
    Cortex+ZEITGEISTWotBSI Defended The Walls!

    Ignore Neonchameleon
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratskinner View Post
    I think the root of this argument was a change in the way D&D views magic that happened around 3e.
    Indeed. There are two problems here. The first is that with the advent of the spontaneous casters the way magic changed. The second is that the wizard got seriously outflanked in several ways when it came to magic.

    If I play a loremaster in 3.5 I don't play a wizard at all. I go for the bard (with Perform (Oratory)). They know about Stuff. They have magic and have mastered it. Versatile skills, and they can help you at what you are supposed to be good at.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_Nightwing View Post
    Hah, interesting. I agree with you on the Sorcerer.
    And the knock-on effect here is that by sharing a spell list with wizards, the sorceror and wizard define each other by their contrasts. The sorceror just doesn't match his fluff, and because the sorceror is so close mechanically to the wizard this affects the wizard as well.

    The wizard has access to more powerful magic earlier, but the sorceror has better control over what he can cast when he can finally cast it. The uncontrolled one should get the powerful spells first but uses something (whether props such as books, lack of reliability, or burning thelselves up) to assist. And the controlled one should be better able to make fine differences in their spells. Which fits the narrative of the sorceror being better controlled than the wizard. (If they use the same casting system and rate then the whole thing just drops out and it's the spells that matter). Not that there's much in it - but what's in it is all there is between the mechanics of the classes.

  • #137
    Registered User
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)

    GMforPowergamers's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    City of Sharn
    Posts
    3,015
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews

    Ignore GMforPowergamers
    I always felt sorcerer should hav had less spells per day (still more then wizard, and d6hd
    I'm with D&D...Any Edition

  • #138
    If the sorceror is a channeller (as the 4e sorceror is) then you make the spells reflect this (so a storm sorceror manipulates weather magic, an elementalist manipulates their element) and they channel that one thing. And channellers have big, powerful, but not that controlled effects. They are channelling the raw energy of (whatever) rather than carefully building it. And everything should be on the theme.
    I agree with this, and actually think 5e is on the right track to model it. Regardless of which spell system they use (though I prefer spellpoints for them), you give them a specialized spell list according to their heritage, and then build in uncontrolled effects that come into play when their willpower is depleted.

    I'm a little confused over who's arguing what as to who should be the more controlled caster though... at one minute it looks like it's argued the sorcerer is more controlled, at another the wizard.

  • #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    The core problem is that D&D magic is almost effortless. If the sorceror is a wild talent, make him a wild talent. Make his magic wild - because as 3.5 stands, the sorceror has the most safe, sane, and controlled magic of any caster. Controlled and versatile magic should be the hallmarks of the wizard. (And I emphatically believe that the caps on spells known per level by a wizard were a good thing). If anything, of the primary casters, the wizard should have the least powerful spells - he can't simply open a channel to somewhere and let it all pour through. He needs to build his spells piece by piece.
    I disagree, especially with the last part. The sorcerer's power is limited by his physical/mental limits; the wizard, on the other hand, is using power external to him. This means that wizardly magic can be extremely powerful, but it's also inflexible and has the potential to backfire. He's like a scientist playing with forces beyond his full control.

    "Fire and forget" is kind of silly, but it's at least one way of modeling the amount of preparation and specificity a wizard needs going into combat with his magic.

  • #140
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Defender (Lvl 8)

    GameDoc's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain
    Posts
    556
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore GameDoc
    No one in my group ever cared to play a 4e sorcerer, so my concept of the wizard/sorcerer distinction is mostly the 3x version. The way it seemed to me was that wizards and sorcerers shared a spell list because in the end, they were bringing about the exact same phenomena. Wizards did it by careful study and understanding of the phenomenon itself, sorcerers just sort of winged it with instinct. IIRC, the PHB said some sorcerers "claimed" a draconic or extraplanar bloodline, not that this was in fact the established source of their power. Having known an autistic savant who could play the piano like a master with no formal training whatsoever, the idea of a sorcerer just somehow figuring out how to do what a wizard spent years learning never sat ill with me.

    Anyway, this to me is what the 3.x mechanics tried to model. The wizard had to undergo an intensive and life-long study of how magic worked and as a result, could learn a lot more spells. The sorcerer was stuck with whatever he could figure out with his own instincts, hence fewer spells and slower advancement. Whether this is a good way to model the difference or not is obviously up for debate. It doesn't (to me anyway) provide a solid rationale for a wizard only being able to use a prepared spell once without tacking on the fluff of "fire and forget" or "preparation means the spell is 90% cast and just waiting on the last component to set it off."

    All that is to bring me to a slightly different idea. Consider two things:

    First - Part of the goal for Next was to recapture some of the original feel of older editions (0D&D, 1e, 2e). Initially, the basic arcane class was called "magic user" specifically to avoid any connotations association with terms like wizard, sorcerer, warlock, witch, conjurer, magi, etc.

    Second - So far, the idea seems to give each basic class build options. Fighters get fighting styles, rogues get schemes, and clerics get domains. Each class got two builds. It seemed like the arcane traditions were slated to occupy this spot for wizards. What if instead, the casting mechanic were to occupy that spot?

    So in comparison to what we have so far with the other classes you might get a class called "Magic-User" (yes, they'd have to rename the background currently using that title) with the basics: d4 hit dice, poor weapon attack bonus, good magic attack bonus, no armor, few weapons, spells per day table.

    Then add "arcane tradition" as the analogous choice to fighter style, rogue scheme, or cleric domain. The two basics could be "wizard" and "sorcerer".

    Wizards would have a spellbook and the ability to record any arcane spell of a level they can cast in the spellbook. But they have to specifically prepare spell for each slot in the spells per day table.

    Sorcerers would not have a spellbook and be limited to knowing a number of spells for each level equivalent to their slots per day, but could cast any spell they know by expending a slot of the same level (or higher).

    The wizard gets more spells to choose from with the trade off that he has to prepare them and run the risk of choosing a spell that turns out to be suboptimal or possibly even useless in the day to come.

    From there you could add a warlock tradition, an illusionist tradition, and so one each with a mechanic that modeled the fluff of the class.

    Incidentally, if the above were to come about, I'm not whetted to calling the class "magic user" and making the traditions "wizard" and "sorcerer" and "warlock" and so on. If want to call the basic arcane class "wizard" and let the sorcerer and warlock be something totally different, that's fine.

    I guess the major weakness here is that it rolls the different casting methods into wizard options and leaves the cleric out.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314

    Similar Threads

    1. What happened to Legend and Lore?
      By kerleth in forum D&D 5th Edition
      Replies: 46
      Last Post: Wednesday, 15th May, 2013, 08:47 AM
    2. Legend and lore - the other one is too big
      By Sadrik in forum D&D 5th Edition
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: Monday, 11th March, 2013, 06:45 AM
    3. Legend Lore says 'story not rules' (3/4)
      By mach1.9pants in forum D&D 5th Edition
      Replies: 341
      Last Post: Saturday, 9th March, 2013, 10:30 PM
    4. New Legend and Lore: Getting the Most out of the Rules
      By Greg K in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 39
      Last Post: Friday, 4th November, 2011, 11:00 AM
    5. Legend Lore Question
      By AnthonyRoberson in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: Wednesday, 11th December, 2002, 11:30 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •