complete magic overhaul

[end of the world]

hi everyone. this is my first post. i just joined the forums a few minutes ago, so forgive me if i'm clumsy with any of the established etiquette.

i started playing d&d in middle school. while i dabbled a bit in 1st edition, most of my early experience was with second edition. toward the end of that time, my friends and i started playing 3rd edition, and now i've got a new group of friends and we play 3.5.

introduction out of the way, i've always had a problem with how magic works in the game.

here are my biggest complaints:

1. spells per day. this has never sat right with me. i believe that if you know how to do something, you can do it as often as you want. i've read the official explanation about the magical energy leaving your mind when the spell is cast, and that seems like b.s. to me.

2. xp costs for writing scrolls. this is completely counterintuitive. the more you work with a particular spell, the more experienced you should become with it.

3. i'm pretty sure i have more complaints, but i'm nearly out of time and i've got other stuff to do right now. i'll let you stew on those first two.


yes, i know these limitations are there for balanced game play, and that not everything in a fantasy role playing game is going to be rational. that being said, i think there are better alternatives.

i would like to see a system where wizards or sorcerers (maybe even combine the two again) are more limited in the number of spells they can learn, but can cast the spells they know an unlimited number of times (dependent on the availability of any material components that said spells may require). the spells could also be less powerful, and the acquisition of a new spell may take longer to earn.


i'm a stranger to most role playing games outside of d&d, so if there is a similar game out there with a system like the one i'm imagining, please point me in that direction. otherwise, please discuss.

 

[Hawken]

4E may be what you're looking for. They have a limited number of "spells" and many of them are "at will" powers, while others are able to be used a fixed number of times per encounter or per day.

To address your specific points:
1) This isn't so much an error in logic as it is an issue of game "balance". If you have a 5th level group, you don't even need fighters really when you have unlimited Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, Fly, Dispel Magic, etc. Limiting spells was done to give others something to do, that and the theory is that it is harder to control and direct magical energy than it is to swing an axe or stab someone in the back!

If you don't like the Vancian system of magic, then I would suggest you look into the (Revised) Elements of Magic system. I think you'd find that more appealing.

2) This is another flub with 3.x edition. If you look at 2e, wizards actually EARNED xp by creating scrolls, new spells, etc. This is something that most DMs quickly did away with or ignored.

 

[end of the world]

4E may be what you're looking for. They have a limited number of "spells" and many of them are "at will" powers, while others are able to be used a fixed number of times per encounter or per day.

thank you, hawken, for your reply.

i don't think 4E is, on the whole, what i'm looking for. while i've never given it a fair look myself, i've heard from enough people who i trust that 4E is lame. also, i love most of 3.5. it's just the magic that irks me. maybe one or two other things...

To address your specific points:
1) This isn't so much an error in logic as it is an issue of game "balance". If you have a 5th level group, you don't even need fighters really when you have unlimited Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, Fly, Dispel Magic, etc. Limiting spells was done to give others something to do, that and the theory is that it is harder to control and direct magical energy than it is to swing an axe or stab someone in the back!

yes, i understand the need for game balance. and as quick as i am to complain about the way it's set up, i can't actually offer any good alternatives. i'm certainly not suggesting leaving spell progression the way it is and just removing the limitations.

If you don't like the Vancian system of magic, then I would suggest you look into the (Revised) Elements of Magic system. I think you'd find that more appealing.

i had to look up "vancian system of magic", but that google search led me to an interesting wikipedia article. thanks for that. i had a brief look at the revised elements of magic system. is that point-based? if so, that's not what i'm looking for either. it's not the way i see magic. i don't see it as something that is spent. i can't believe i'm about to reference harry potter, but that's more of how i see it. once you've mastered a particular spell, you can cast it willy-nilly. again, for game balance, a wizard would be severely limited in his access to new spells. maybe something could be worked out like that. you have to master the spell. for example, when you first acquire a spell, you have a very low probability of it being successful, but each time you successfully cast it, your odds of successfully casting it the next time increase a bit. i can already see that idea being routed by the player "practicing" in his down time until the spell is mastered, but it's something to think about.

2) This is another flub with 3.x edition. If you look at 2e, wizards actually EARNED xp by creating scrolls, new spells, etc. This is something that most DMs quickly did away with or ignored.

ah, well i'm glad others see eye to eye with me on that. i'll bring that up with my current group. nobody in our group has even bothered to make a single scroll because of those stupid penalties.


again, thank you for your reply.

 

[end of the world]

2) This is another flub with 3.x edition. If you look at 2e, wizards actually EARNED xp by creating scrolls, new spells, etc. This is something that most DMs quickly did away with or ignored.

another quick question. if most DMs do away with that or ignore it, what's to stop players from stockpiling spells on scrolls? and if they do stockpile scrolls, then isn't that pretty much the same as just pulling out the limitations of spellcasters?

i don't want to sound argumentative. the answer to the above questions may have practical applications in my group's current campaign.

thanks.

 

[Nonei]

The Vancian style of magic always irked me as well, Personally I would prefer a system that the easiest spells are unlimited but the harder spells cost some sort of 'points' in the sense that this is how much effort it takes to cast. Many fantasy books have epic conflicts with the wizards drained or almost dead from that last desperate spellcasting - so some sort of fatigue system would work well.

This is how True20 did it; I haven't actually played a game of it but I am intrigued by parts of the magic system. Basically, it is treated as skill checks, including the ability to take 10 on most spells, and 20 if no risk of failure. The magic user can increase the ability like a skill... Many spells are non-fatiguing, i.e. simple, and so have no difficulty, but the more difficult spells and supernatural abilities (it lumps them into one) are assigned a DC - or a range of difficulties so you can use, say, create fire to do a flame or a fireball simply by upping the DC. If a magic user fails to make the DC, they are fatigued. Multiple uses of 'fatiguing' spells in a short time (without an hour of avoiding the fatiguing spells in between) increases the DC to avoid the fatigue by 1 each time.

Rather than the SRD rules for fatigue, they have 3 levels -winded (-1 str or dex, cannot run or charge) -fatigued (same as srd), and exhausted (same as SRD), (then unconscious) and after an hour of rest, the player can make a fort save to recover 1 level of fatigue. .. they really tried to avoid the 4 minute workday in True20. There are a lot of other differences in other areas too, the manual is actually a pretty interesting read.

 

[end of the world]

thanks nonei. that's pretty much exactly the sort of response i was looking for. i don't know exactly what i'll do with the information, but i'll certainly have a look at true20. cheers!