Per-encounter Simple-Complex-Exotic Magic System for d20?

[JohnSnow]

Okay, I've been kicking something like this around for MONTHS now. I was working on it a bit, inspired by systems in the Midnight Campaign Setting, The Black Company Campaign Setting (& True Sorcery, natch), Thieves' World, Elements of Magic - Mythic Earth, Tome of Magic, True20, Warhammer FRP Reserve Feats from Complete Mage, Warlocks from Complete Arcane, this article from Monte Cook, and just about every fantasy novel I've ever read.

I started hammering it out over on the Iron Heroes boards, and we hit on Tokens, which are generated by spending actions, as the primary mechanic. The thread for the most recent discussion I've had on the topic is here.

For those who don't want to wade through that, I'll start with some helpful exerpts from a post one of the other guys made (FYI, "Ironcarnum" is a system he's developed himself):

There are many different rule structures that one can lay a magic system down on; what would you prefer?

If you need a little prodding, let me say a bit about my observations of magic systems.

Basically, you need to establish three costs: The Initial Cost (or how do I get this ability?), the Scaling cost (or How do I make this more powerful?), and the Boom cost (or Where the hell is Fireball?). I'll look at three magic systems to deconstruct how they answer these questions: the wizard with Reserve Feats, the Warlock, and Ironcarnum.

First, the initial cost. This is establishing the cost of gaining an at-will ability. Because it's usable at will, we want the cost to be something permanent. In W+RF, the cost is feats, to gain the Reserve abilities. In Warlock, the cost is class power - you just have to take levels to gain more abilities. In Ironcarnum, it is also feats.

Second, scaling cost. Abilities can draw from a number of different areas to scale, actually. For the W+RF, the major scaling cost is the opportunity cost of not using your spells, and having to prepare specific types. Preparing and not using a higher-level spell allows you to scale the RF further.

For the Warlock, the scaling is class power, but it is somewhat implicit. Individual warlock abilities do not scale, in general. They're always the same power. However, as you level up you can choose more powerful abilities. This is a form of scaling, though not always a great one.

In Ironcarnum, the scaling is Focus tokens. You gradually gain more tokens, and the ability to use more of them on a single ability.

The point of the scaling cost is that you should be able to keep it up indefinitely. It should either be a permanent cost (like the warlock), an opportunity cost (like the W+RF), an invented-but-replenishable resource (like Ironcarnum), or something else along that nature.

Finally, we have the boom cost. This determines how often and how powerfully you can throw out the big spells. This is the only resource that should be finite. For the W+RF, it's spell slots (plus a unique ability to cannibalize his scaling cost to pay for more boom). The Warlock can't boom at all, unfortunately. This makes him easy to balance, but not always the best to play. In Ironcarnum, the boom cost is Drain tokens, which indirectly translates into HP.

So, what sort of costs do you want to assign? There's really a ton of flexibility in how everything gets assigned, but it may help to have things laid out abstractly like this.

My basic response, which hasn't changed, was pretty much along the following lines.

I agree most abilities are set up on the initial cost, and scaling cost basis. However, what D&D has always glossed over is the difference between an ability that can be used once, and an ability that can be used repeatedly in a short period of time. The "boom cost," as CJM put it.

Some of the most abusive scenarios I've heard about in high-level D&D involved multiple uber-spells in rapid succession. The theory behind spell slots was good, forcing casters to use their weaker spells for weaker threats, and save their BOOM spells for dangerous opponents.

However, what often happens in practice is that they burn through their spells at an alarming rate and then force everyone to rest. This is unrealistic in a game-world sense, and awfully unfun. It also totally countermands the design theory behind spell slots. It's worth noting that X uses per day abilties mostly work the same way. When they're done, the player of that character usually wants to stop. Fortunately, most of those classes have things they can still do so that they can still have fun. But when spellcasters are out of spells, everything tends to grind to a halt. It ends up falling to the DM to enforce balance by making rest spots hard to find. And DMs who do so find themselves with unhappy players. Again, unfun.

One of the things I like about Iron Heroes is that token-based abilities have a per-encounter opportunity cost. That way, you only use your "big guns" when your little ones don't work. So you just shoot the cannon fodder, but save Aim tokens up to take out the goblin shaman. Magic should work similarly. Albeit there are some special considerations when it comes to the world-altering aspects of magic. More on that later.

So I'm looking to make a system where the caster has nearly unlimited minor magical effects (although maybe with some limit to how many he can have active at once), but reaching for his big guns costs him. A mechanism like fatigue really appeals to me. So that if you go for a BIG spell, you blow your wad magically. If I toss my fireball in a battle, then I'm depleted after that. No more big gun. But I still have access to my lesser powers.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to balance at-will abilities for 3rd-level and higher casters. I'm pretty sure you can have a couple of at-will abilities at that level without it being unbalancing. Really low level spellcasters are a bit of a special case, but I'm sure something could be worked out. A very limited number of powers, perhaps.

I've had long threads about what magic should be able to do, and what magic shouldn't do. For example, I'd like to see a magic system without a spell that just opens all mundane locks. Using magic as a tool, maybe even a tool with a bonus is fine. But a straight on-off is, IMO, bad. That way, the spellcaster can't just replace the character with the open lock skill.

I'd like to limit buff spells too, as they are one of the most abused spells in D&D. Self buffing is no problem (as long as there's a limit to the number of buffs that can be active at one time), but the ability to buff everyone in the group can quickly be abused. Unless there's some opportunity cost.

I could see a system that used actions, spell durations, fatigue, spell recovery time, or skill checks to reign in spellcaster power. Classically, D&D has always used durations and spell recovery time only. There's plenty of other options. As Wulf has said, actions seem like the best and most obvious control, with durations, caster fatigue, spell recovery, and skill checks adding some secondary limiters.

The Tome of Battle and Star Wars Saga Edition primarily use encounter-based recovery time. A bit cheesy I suppose. Here's the guts of the system I've been working on, in general concept:

- Casters have a pool of powers, some at-will and others that require a bit more effort.
- There's some mechanical encouragement for spellcaster restraint.
- Using up their big powers forces the caster to rely on their lesser abilities.
- Casters don't have to fall back on mundane weapons except in rare circumstances.
- Theoretically, casters should have to trade off raw power and magical versatility.

Those are my initial reactions. Thoughts?

 

[JohnSnow]

Here's where I think I'm going to lose Henry already.

Let's take fireball.

Surely we can agree it's not exotic.

So let's say it is, at its most exclusionary, complex.

That very interesting element of "Save my fireball, or use it now?" is gone. The caster knows he can use his fireball, even if complex, in every fight. He'll get it back with a bit of post-fight rest (circumstances willing).

I know that sounds like a bad thing, but in my mind it's really not that different from the way sorcerers play now. Sorcerers don't feel like they have to save their "big guns" in the way that wizards do.

So to me, this isn't a game breaking issue, as much as it is a "This is part of the fun of being a wizard..." issue.

The thing is, that doesn't have to be. You can have a caster who wants lots of Raw Power and can cast fireball repeatedly, fight after fight (an evoker specialist, fire mage, or whatever...)

Or you can have a caster for whom fireball is a tricky spell. Sure, maybe he can whip out a little 3d6 fireburst every fight, but throwing that big expansive, room-filling blast whipes him out. For him, fireball is complex.

Take a look at the Warlock's Eldritch Blast. It's a ranged touch attack - one target.

His invocations let him shape it into a burst. What if he only got so many of those a day? Now he's choosing between versatility and power. The player who likes the wizard type can play the character for whom those blast spells are a rare occurrence. Or who can only shapeshift once a day. But a character who wants to be able to do one or the other all the time can pull it off.

I'm not sure if I'm making any sense...

Part of the attraction (to me) of some spells taking more actions to cast is that those spells would only be worth throwing in longer, tougher fights. So if amping up to throw your Fireball takes you four rounds, you're not gonna bother with it in a fight that's likely to be over in three. You will, however, use it when you need to get rid of the BBEG.

I actually think it's important to try to write the system to address your friend's primary concern. To whit:

Its the open ended possibilities that magic creates, especially in desperate situations, that makes it fun for me. Everyone looks at the wizard with that request "don't you have a spell for this?"

You might give the option of having certain spells prepped and ready, with others taking you more time. So if you thought to prep a knock spell, it's useful if you encounter a door you need to pass in a hurry. Or polymorph other...

It's almost a floating pool of power. That's a neat theory. That is a potentially nice part of the Book of Nine Swords system. That you can have some, but not all, of your powers prepped.

We'd have to break it down magical effect by magical effect. I can see the "fun" in having the right utility spell ready. Or in deciding that you don't have the right "stuff" for an invisibility spell handy, but you can achieve a similar effect by becoming a mouse.

Consumable components, maybe? A limit to the number of types of a different spell your body can handle in a day without ill effect.

I'd hate to see a system where the caster had the same power to use all the time. Booorrr-ing. Like someone said, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.

Charmed comes to mind. The sisters have their powers which they can use all the time, but if they need utility spells, they've got the Book of Shadows. Perhaps a bad example, but the idea's sound.

 

[Henry]

I'd hate to see a system where the caster had the same power to use all the time. Booorrr-ing. Like someone said, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.

Thing is, in practice for something like Book of 9 swords, the user typically takes the hammer maneuver, the hammer-launcher maneuver, and the "my foot turns into a hammer" maneuver and even though they're different maneuvers, they all do the same thing - namely, equivalent dice of damage. I'd rather have a system where the caster would actually DO some different things, or pay if he's going to do the same trick over and over again. Back in 2nd edition, I played with a spell system that said, "if you want to cast different spells, you don't have to memorize, but if you are casting the same spell twice or more, you have to note it on your sheet." At the very least, people who were blast-happy loaded up with blast spells, but left the last one or two slots open for different tricks.

By the way, EXCELLENT breakdown of the Initial cost, scaling cost, and boom cost. I never realized it, but True Sorcery/Black Company does this with Spell Energy Points; higher casters, having gained more spell energy points, have a larger damage buffer for their minor spells to cast. A mid-level True Sorcery cast could go generating single-target-swift-action force damage effects almost all day long, but if he shoots off some godawful spell with a high cast DC, he not only can possibly fail if he tries something too tough for his level, he will drain himself into unconsciousness.

 

[Henry]

In terms of Simple-Complex-Exotic, I'd rather have simple be something like magic missile or Psionic's Energy ray; simple, direct damage, single target. It's the caster's "magic crossbow." Also, effects like jump, spider climb, entropic shield, etc.

Complex spells to me would be more direct damage, or area damage with less of a die range, say like scorching ray, or fireball but using d4's instead of d6's, etc. Also, spells like a limited-duration charm person, or command/greater command, dimension door, mage armor, shield, etc.

Exotic spells I would like to see the really game-breaking stuff for it, like teleport, Fireball but with d8's, conjure elemental, a double strength mage armor, etc.

That's the kind of power scale I could deal with.

 

[McBard]

Wulf Ratbane (or anyone, really): aside from addressing the call for a new/evolved spell mechanic for D&D, do you feel it neccessary to address from within this new/evolved spell mechanic the call to balance the "unfair" superior class power of higher level clerics/druids/wizards vis a vis non-spellcasting classes?

To my mind, I find my question rhetorical: I'd answer "yes."

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wulf Ratbane

Wulf is fine...

aside from addressing the call for a new/evolved spell mechanic for D&D, do you feel it neccessary to address from within this new/evolved spell mechanic the call to balance the "unfair" superior class power of higher level clerics/druids/wizards vis a vis non-spellcasting classes?

To my mind, I find my question rhetorical: I'd answer "yes."

Well, yes and no.

In fact GlassJaw just discussed with me that he wouldn't even begin this discussion without a more holistic approach that addresses "all the things wrong with the gameplay experience of D&D 3e."

It's part of our hypothetical "Sweet Spot 4e" project. This discussion is just an extension of that.

Anyhow, for starters, I'd make every spell 6th level and higher de facto exotic-- if not remove them from the game entirely.

Honestly, the D&D experience from 1st through 10th (maybe 12th) is so strikingly different from gameplay at 10th-20th, that I'd much prefer they sell it as a second stand-alone product, and find a way to "extend the sweet spot" so that we get the same enjoyment (and duration of play) out of 1st-10th as we currently (supposedly) get from 1st-20th.

But having said that, I'm not ready to concede that spellcasters have unfair power, even as the game stands now.

 

[McBard]

In fact GlassJaw just discussed with me that he wouldn't even begin this discussion without a more holistic approach that addresses "all the things wrong with the gameplay experience of D&D 3e."

Agreed--and good to hear.

Now, on to a sharing an idea regarding the "per encounter" versus "per day" mechanic discussion. In revamping 3.5 magic for my campaign, I found it to be a personal, game design break-through to shift many of the powerful, restricted time-use abilities to a "per class level" mechanic. As artificial as a level-based character system is to many people (and I'm not meaning to enter into that debate here), it does cleanly express a character's growth in power.

I think you might consider inserting a per class level limition on your exotic spells (rather than merely a per day). What's ironic about the clunkiness of per day limitations is that it is because the game mechanic itself is embedded in the game world that you get the weirdness of having to rest for a night (game world event) in order to regain a daily ability (game mechanic event).

A per level limitation, by definition, scales itself to every particular gaming group (whereas, as strange as it sounds, a "campaign day" does not mean the same thing from one gaming group to another). Granted, how long in real time it takes to go from one level to the next might vary according to group (how often they play, DM style etc.), but how many XP it takes to go from one level to the next does not.

While the game design philosophy du jour seems to be per encounter scaling, even it starts to show its flaws when applied to "epic" or "exotic" abilities--which you realize, of course, as evinced by the very attractive mechanic of simple and complex spells.

Bottom line point: per encounter scaling (game mechanic events) would seem to work well for short scale abilities (e.g. simple, complex spells); but it strikes me that per day scaling (a game world event) for exotic/epic abilities would better be replaced by per class level scaling (a game mecanic event).

Oh, love the spell card flipping and turning thingy.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Oh, love the spell card flipping and turning thingy.

Heh... It's about the best thing I found in Book of Nine Swords. (Not my cup of tea overall.)

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Lots of good stuff in here already.

A couple of suggestions to start...

I'd like to see this magic system tied to a new class (much like the warlock, binder, incarnum, and ToB's Initiators got their systems associated with a new class). This'll keep us from having to deal with any possible underlying balance issues with the existing classes. We certainly can freely snatch up ideas, mechanics, and baseline assumptions from the existing classes, but trying to stuff them wholesale into a new system is going to invite extra trouble, I think.

Simple Spells: I'd like these to be at-will, or almost at-will. Also, they should be very simple, dealing damage to a single target (or one square, perhaps), buffing for a very short time (1d6 rounds, maybe?), granting a single skill check (1d20 + caster level + casting modifier on Open Lock check, or similar). Stuff like that. I'd also like it to progress in such a way that a low-level character has one or two of these available, a mid level character has five or six, and a high level character has maybe a dozen of them. The initial cost for these should be almost negligible, but they should scale much, for the most part.

Complex Spells: Your run of the mill combat stuff should go in here. Your fireballs and cones of cold, (I think that healing should probably go in here, as well, but I can also see healing as exotic) your medium term (ones that'll last an hour or so) buffs, most condition removal. I like the idea of taking fifteen minutes to refresh complex spells. its not exactly encounter based, meaning that if you get stuck in a run and gun situation, your're not going to find yourself magically refreshed, but if you can take breather, you'll be more or less good to go.

Exotic Spells: Your real game-breakers should obviously go in here, but I'd like to see a way to make one (or more) of these complex... Like some sort of specialization feats to turn a guy into a teleporter. Boom spells that fall into the exotic category should really give you a lot of bang for your buck.

One thing that I'm not sure that I agree with is the no multiple copies restriction from Bo9S. If somebody just wants to teleport today, or if he wants to spend all day communing with higher powers, I think that he should be able to do that.

Hmm... I'll have to go back over everything some more to come up with further thoughts, or to revise my current thinking or whatever... More later.

Later
silver

 

[BryonD]

I really like where this is going.

One concern that strikes me at first view is it seems to go a bit to far from standard D&D in the ability to throw a particular spell multiple times. The cost of spending an action to throw a second magic missle seems steep. Even if a simple Spellcraft check makes it just a move action, that is a high oppurtunity cost compared to now. I understand that the price has to be paid somewhere to offset the gains, but this seems a bit high and doesn't quite seem to fit "D&D".
By the same token, limiting a 1st level cleric to one cure light wounds per day for the entire party seems really harsh (even 1/encounter is harsh, I think). In Grim Tales that seems obvious. But D&D ain't Grim Tales.

Perhaps (shooting from the hip here) spontaneous healing could be re-imagined here. You can cast and refresh bless as much as you want. Or you can burn that (simple) bless as a (complex or exotic) cure light wounds and "burn out" the energy. I don't know. CLW every ten minutes would be to much (clearly), but spending all your slots as exotic heals puts you back to the out-of-juice problem we are trying to solve.

If someone can improve this thought, perhaps a similar signature spell mechanic could apply to let arcane casters keep some D&D flash.
?????


How do Spontaneous caster's know what spells they may choose their ready spells from?