What inspired the D&D magic rules and do you like it?

[Geron Raveneye]

And here I sit and wonder where the problem might be, what with the modularity of d20 systems, to simply use all those systems of magic you really like, one beside the other, and simply create a separate tradition for each? Would probably even paint a much more realistic picture of vastly different cultures, if they don't use the exact same way to use arcane magic. After all, it's that way for religions, too...you have highly formalized churches and priests, you have shamen who only serve their tribe and their totem, you have druidic religions that only serve nature, and they all gain power from divine sources.

In my Iron Kingdoms campaign, for example, I've simply grabbed AU's magister, modified the class a bit, and gave it to the elves instead of the wizard class. The dwarves of Rhul don't have wizards either, they have runethanes, who can use arcane spells up to 7th level, while respectfully leaving the highest mysteries to their priestly colleagues. In exchange, I gave human wizards a little more in bonus feats, and while runethanes can cast runes, magisters are allowed to weave spell slots up and down as per AU rules, and human wizards can manipulate spell formulas on the fly to create minor metamagic effects. As for sorcerers, you either have those who embrace their heritage and become bloodline sorcerers, and run the risk of being hunted down, or you have those who suppress their heritage through discipline and join the mercenaries to become battlefield sorcerers.
The Skorne from the Bloodstone Wastes don't get any magic...they get the psionics instead.


That's why it always puzzles me why everybody is so set on one way to do magic in d20.

And the idea of spells being dangerous and a health hazard would fit great for Infernalists, or other non-magic-users, who don't have magical talent of their own, and neither want sorcerous talent, but only one or two spells to cast "at their own risk", kinda.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have never had any practical problems with the D&D system for spellcasting.

However it's strange that no one has mentioned that 3rd edition core already uses a non-Vancian spellcasting system, that of the spontaneous casters!

In fact after all this time gaming in 3ed I like the CORE D&D spontaneous casting rules more than any system. They are very easy to run, they have a sensible way to represent gradual power increase, they keep spell knowledge limited (which helps also in making spellcasters different). However I still like the vancian classes as well.

Spell-point systems are just fine, but IMHO the flexibility increase (not too great compared to a core spontaneous caster) isn't usually worth the extra layer of complexity for the players.

Mana systems I haven't really used in P&P games, although I want to try the "recharge magic" UA variant and see how it works, and I think it's another valid alternative.

Backfire magic (such as Mongoose's Chaos Magic) is another valid idea, but IMHO it tends to become tedious quite soon. The risk in casting a spell is fun at first but may become easily annoying (also the few systems I've read all seemed to have chosen a too high risk compared to the benefits) and it immediately leads designers to provide ways to circumvent or minimize the risk (in d20 that's with feats and PrCls) and players to grab as many of those as possible.

 

[Akrasia]

The best fantasy series of all time (okay, after LotR) is Jack Vance's Lyonesse trilogy.

They are vastly superior to his Dying Earth stories (IMO).

And they read like a great fantasy campaign.

Good stuff!

Also, the magic in those novels 'makes sense' -- i.e. seems plausible, as you read the stories.

 

[Narfellus]

And here I sit and wonder where the problem might be, what with the modularity of d20 systems, to simply use all those systems of magic you really like, one beside the other, and simply create a separate tradition for each? Would probably even paint a much more realistic picture of vastly different cultures, if they don't use the exact same way to use arcane magic. After all, it's that way for religions, too...you have highly formalized churches and priests, you have shamen who only serve their tribe and their totem, you have druidic religions that only serve nature, and they all gain power from divine sources.

YES, Geron. That is EXACTLY what i said in an earlier post, it's what i'm trying to do with my Midnight campaign. The different systems of magic will work differently, and this can be explained in-game as them being different traditions, or simply wizards/priests having more natural aptitude than other characters. For simplicity's sake, most game system want to adhere to one "way" of doing magic and leave it at that. Which makes sense, but given the advancements that the RPG industry has made in the past 30 years, there are simply too many great systems to adhere to just one. No one can ever agree on what's best, and they never will. I think 4th edition should have several detailed magic systems that can all be used side-by-side. A players picks one, and sticks with it for life, for better or worse.

 

[Henry]

I've thought that the current way 3E does preparing spells is sort of like the idea of "Hanging" spells from Zelazny's Amber series, as it was described to me. I've never read the Amber books, does anyone who has get this perception?

 

[DragonLancer]

What is Vancian magic? Well, thats been answered already.

Do I like it as part of the D&D game system? Yes. It carries with it great flavour, and it fits the game system very well.

 

[HiLiphNY]

It's all about the Ioun Stones, baby!


Now where's that laughing magician laying about these days?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I like the system. It's D&D.

 

[Drugged Dwarf]

There is one thing I really do not get with wizard casting:

It is said that they spend 15 minutes 'preparing' the spells to be cast, so it takes less time for them to cast them. And they can fully leave spell slots for later on when they can spend another time memorising them to be cast.

So why can't a mage just simply spend the time needed to trully cast a spell from his spell book, but NOT memorise it, whenever he has time? As it isn't being memorised, he can spend the 10 to twenty minutes reading it from the book and casting it without having to worry about spell slots right? or am I just seeing this from the wrong perspective here?

 

[der_kluge]

I'm starting to sound like a HARP whore, but here goes - I really like the way HARP does spellcasting. It's all based on skill points. So, you allocate as many skill points as you want to into "arcane bolt", for example. The more ranks you have in it, the more you can "meta-magic" the spell effect. So, by expending more points (up the ranks you have in the spell) you can extend the range, extend the damage, extend the duration, etc. So, even a high level wizard in HARP would really only have maybe a dozen spells, but they could cast 20th level versions of magic missile that would kick serious arse.

It's also very flexible in that the number of power points (read: mana points) is also a skill. So, how good a spellcaster you want to be is really a reflection of how many skill ranks you want to expend on it. And hit points are a skill, too, so you can sacrifice -everything- for more magic points and magic spells if you really wanted to.


I've never really cared for the spellcasting system in D&D. Even in 2nd edition we used spell points. It made much more sense to me.