Your Magic Is Killing Us

[1Mac]

Changing the subject just a bit here.

IMO, that makes magic "the same". Magic is called magic because it's different, has different advantages and limitations....In gameplay, I think magic should be balanced with sword fighting, but using an entirely different track; otherwise, magic becomes a sword in a funny suit and that feels superficial and non-compelling for me.

I really want to get away from this kind of thinking. I agree that magic should feel different from mundane combat, but not if it means replacing an elegant Attack vs. Defense d20 roll with a convoluted, overwrought, and problematic subsystem like Vancian magic (and I realize, LurkAway, that you weren't necessarily endorsing Vancian magic).

Rather, I say, use the same basic mechanic for (most) magic as you would for attacks and skills (d20 vs. DC), and make the difference in the effect, not the mechanic. Let magical attacks work basically like regular attacks, but have them do things like set enemies aflame, or check them in place by unseen forces, or turn them into a newt (before getting better, of course).

The same basic mechanic can evoke a magical "feel" if the effects are properly designed, and you don't have to construct a shambling grotesque of an alternative mechanic when you have a basic mechanic that works just fine. And to turn it back to the OT, if magic requires the same sort of dice checks as attacks and skills, then the results of failure can also be base off the same mechanics as well, i.e. critical failures and the like.

 

[Umbran]

I'd like all magic to be like that too. 5% of the time your spells just don't work - at all.

That's what saving throws are for, no?

In 4e, this is really simple - the swordsman and the spellcaster are pretty equivalent, though there is a sort of "sameness" to this approach.

We do have to remember, though, that what sounds like something cool from a story/setting perspective can be kind of crappy from a player's perspective. You're setting up both the character and the player to be a notable disadvantage to the group. It is one of those cases where what's kind of cool in a novel may not be so great in the context of a game with many players.

Let's look at an extreme example to demonstrate the issue baldly. Say you told a player, "Yes, you can have your character specialize in ranged weapons, but your character will have a harness of hand grenades permanently strapped to them, and any time you use a ranged weapon, there's a 1% chance the grenades go off, killing you and injuring everyone nearby." Does that make using a ranged weapon more fun? Is it an incentive to using such a weapon, or a disincentive? You've put together a character that can do cool things, but every time you exercise your coolness, you risk hosing yourself? Is that fun? Is it fun when nobody else has to hose themselves do to their cool stuff?

Now, White Wolf's Mage has significant dangers (Paradox) for mages. But, if you're playing Mage, then everyone in your group is a mage, and you all have the same kind of problem, so nobody is singled out. If you play a mixed White Wolf game, most of the powerful supernatural types have drawbacks - so everyone's a risk in some way or other. Nobody is singled out, in the long run.

I don't mean to say that you can't do such a thing. Merely that you ought to be careful doing it. There has to be some... not necessarily "balance", but fairness about it.

 

[Elf Witch]

Here is my issue with what a lot of you are saying about penalizing magic users. You may be making the game more interesting but are you making the game more fun for the person playing the caster?

If you start adding penalties that seriously effect the caster then people are not going to want to play them and if they do they are going to be hesitant to cast spells which makes them next to useless in combat other then firing crossbolts in melee. Or they can be like first level wizards from old school fire your one spell then hide and maybe bolt out to drag your fallen party members to safety.

If the magic effects the whole party and the caster causes the death of another party member that could lead to some hard feelings.

I am a huge Shadowrun fan and they have a system for penalizing casters that works and is fair magic puts a drain on the caster's body every time you cast a spell you have to make a roll to resist drain if you don't stage the roll down you start taking penalties to everything and if you go to far then you can go unconscious or even kill yourself.

But if you resist the drain you can keep throwing spells all day long if you want you also always know your spells. Also casters in Shadowrun can be as good as a street sam in using a weapon or they can be a great get away driver they are not just limited to throwing magic and then basically suck at everything else. The only difference is that most casters don't choose to have cyberware implanted in their body because it messes with magic so they don't have wired reflexes which means they don't get to go more than once in a round and the fighters go three or four times.

Also everyone has the same amount of damage they can take before death the difference is how many dice you get to stage that damage roll down.

But DnD is not like this first you have niche protection so casters are good at magic, fighters at swinging a weapon and absorbing damage. A full caster class like wizard or sorcerer only get 4 hit die and they for the most part are not made to go toe to toe in melee. Their weapon of choice is magic. And if you start messing with that and putting in penalties that are not built into the game then you start handicapping their ability to be effective.

So if you do this what are you giving the casters in return for this? What makes it worth playing a caster?

In Shadowrun it is knowing that as a mage I can bind elementals to me and unleash them instead of magic. Now binding them is dangerous and can kill the caster or if I am a shaman I can call friendly spirits to help. It is also knowing that I am not totally dependent on magic to be effective.

I can understand wanting magic to be more interesting and it is something I love in stories the cost mages pay for their abilities. I am just not sure that in a game that would lead to more fun for the players. People already complain about the 15 minute adventure day well if your caster has now been blinded by a migraine rendering them useless do you keep going or do you stop and let him sleep it off.

 

[Janx]

I concur with Umbran and Elf Witch and others that making one class riskier and not touching the other classes would probably not be fun and would discourage that class from being played.


It's also worth considering what immediate environmental impact would really be noticed. It's one thing to say that overall, casting spells hurts the environment (causes global cooling say as it draws energy).

However, driving your car to work, while it technically contributes, the result does not trigger an immediate outcome. Whether you drive or don't today, the impact to the climate is negligible. It's the cumulative effect of millions of cars + other industries.

Additionally, for any given area (be it per 5' square, or acre), the amount of activity going on cumulatively is low. There is not somebody casting 1st level spells in that square every round, 24x7 for 10 years. In a given dungeon, this magic missile may be the first spell that square has ever seen.

So, unless the environment is REALLY sensitive, casting some spells over a 6 round combat isn't likely to tip any scales locally or globally.

There's still drama that can be had, I just don't think it needs mechanical support.

Let's say people blame magic for environmental problems. Kinda like blaming Oil Barons of today. Casters may be distrusted, disliked, etc and blamed for the problems in the area (crops not growing, drought, etc). This is no different than many GMs theme that the populace distrusts magic users. Your just tying it into a more specific reason. But your also not counting beans, trying to measure the impact and such.

 

[Croesus]

You've put together a character that can do cool things, but every time you exercise your coolness, you risk hosing yourself?

Agreed, so let's try swapping things around. Instead of hosing the character (or worse, the party) for simply using a class's basic abilities, how about offering something extra, but at a risk.

For instance, a wizard is in a tight spot and really wishes he had memorized dimension door that day. You allow him to swap out another spell for the one he needs, but...he has to roll on the "when your wizard does something cool, but..." table. Have some of the results (say 20%) be no effect, about another 20% are very serious, the rest various levels of inconvenience, e.g., lose half your current hit points, and cannot heal that damage until you've rested 8 hours, or blinded for 10 minutes. Just make sure the side effects only affect the spellcaster, not anyone else. Otherwise, as Elf Witch noted, the spellcaster's player can cause serious issues with the other players.

One option is that there are certain spells in your campaign that no spellcaster can cast without having to roll on that table - perhaps scrying, or teleport, or contact other plane, or wish. Instead of banning such spells, or threatening the players with "if you use it, so will the bad guys", you allow the spell, but at increased risk.

The idea is to allow the player to do something cool, but not overpowered. And doing so entails risk, which makes it much more interesting. Most of all, you're not making the basic class unplayable or "unfun", as this would only apply to something extra.

 

[Stormonu]

Yeah, Croesus, that's along the lines I'm starting to lean. I'm thinking of a game that basically on the order of an E6 game, and if spellcasters want access to higher magics, they'd have to be willing to endure drawbacks to gain access to spells of 4th level or greater. Likewise if they wanted to go beyond their normal spells per day. Magic items might even have these drawbacks as well.

Personally, I wouldn't want any effect that results in outright death or has a chance of outright death. No 5% or 1% chance the caster uses the spell and drops dead. I'd prefer that you know something bad is going to happen (and about how bad it will be, if not specifically what it would be). Even better would be if the caster chooses from a menu of 4-5 drawbacks based on the spell type.

For example:

Light-type spell
1) Caster is dazzled for duration of spell
2) All non-allied creatures that enter the light take on a ghostly appearance, gaining a +4 bonus to hide and can treat the area as gloomy for purposes of hiding
3) Flickering firefly-like bug provide the light, distracting all creatures in the area of effect
4) One art item of 100*spell level in gp is bleached of all color, rendering it worthless until the spell ends

Fire spells
1) All the caster's non-magical clothing/fastners burns away, causing all items to drop to the ground unharmed
2) The caster's body warmth is drawn away to fuel the spell, leaving him numb and shivering (-2 to Dex for X rounds)
3) The consuming flames create a fiery creature with hit points equal to the amount of damage it deals; this creature has a nasty disposition and attacks anyone/anything in reach; It loses X hit points per round that it fails to deal to any damage.
4) The ground around the spellcaster erupts in flames creating a ring of fire around the caster. Anyone attacking through or attempting to pass through the fire (including the caster) takes X damage.


On the environmental front, I'd be looking for things that have a more immediate and mechanical impact; magic dead zones, unintended monster summoning, clouds of poison or acid rain, sinkholes and the like. Flavorful or long-term consequences make for good background imagery, but my experience is they tend to get poo-pooed on by gamers if it isn't "in-their-face" sort of effects.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I believe the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG may be what the OP is looking for. The Beta is free to download and look at. Note that it is a Beta so some rules may be changed for the final release.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I like the idea upthread that spells can leave an "arcane footprint", although my preference would be for it to be less scientific. In other words, arcane magic (particularly high level magic) causes unpredictable things to happen. Casting ice storm doesn't necessarily make another part of the world warmer; it might cause any kind of unusual weather or even cause two-headed calves to be born in the area where the spell was used. That sort of thing would be more setting flavor than anything else though. Canny players might be able to locate an isolated wizard's tower via stories of strange occurrences in the area.


Casters could exceed their allotment of spells, but only at a price.


On a concentration fumble, or when exceeding normal spell slots, an arcane caster accrues Wyrd. The way I see it, it would be a table of 101 results. Every 25 points would be a separate tier. 1-25 would be annoyances, more story than mechanical. Things like the caster's shadow disappearing, or milk curdling in his presence. 26-50 would be minor mechanical effects, such as suffering a small amount of damage on a failed concentration check (feedback), or suffering pain when touching cold iron. 51-75 would be significant effects, such as paranoia/megalomania or a significant vulnerability to fire. 76-100 would be very serious effects, such as risking demonic possession, or every spell having a chance of having the reverse of it's intended effect. At 101+, the arcane energies in the become uncontainable, and he goes off like the retributive strike from a Staff of Power (Staff of the Magi?). If he survives, his Wyrd resets to 0.

Spells would increase Wyrd by a random amount based on their level. Level 1 spells might be 1d4, while level 9 spells might be 4d6. Each day the caster spends without using arcane magic could reduce his Wyrd by a small amount, like 1d4. Perhaps arcane casters also know a purification ritual that allows them to shed Wyrd more quickly than that, when need be.

It's the idea that overusing Arcane magic is dangerous, and that wizards tend to be a little weird.


Divine/Primal classes (as well as Warlocks) would have their own version called Obligation. Obligation would accrue at a fixed rate (perhaps 2 per spell level) on a fumble, provided the spell was not cast in direct service of their Patron's ideals. Using spell slots you don't have always accrues Obligation. Using divine magic in violation of your Patron's ideals accrues much Obligation.

Obligation would have different tiers as well, but each tier would have a fixed penalty (rather than a range of various effects). At 101+, you lose your spellcasting abilities until your services reduce your Obligation below 101.

Obligation only goes away by performing services for your Patron.

It's the idea that your Deity/Patron entrusts you with a portion of his power for a reason, and expects you to serve his ideals with that power. If you use it otherwise, you owe him a service.

Warlocks are a special case- they're arcane casters who use the obligation system. Their Patron shields them from the chaotic effects of Arcane magic, but expects the warlock to honor their pact in return.


Just my thoughts on how a system like this could function.

 

[Dausuul]

In 4E, almost every spell requires an attack roll, with 1 being an auto-miss and 20 being a crit, just like weapons. I have not observed that it makes magic more exciting or flavorful. It's just another die roll. They actually revised magic missile to make it auto-hit again; before that, it was a wizard's equivalent of bow and arrow.

In terms of "hazard mechanics," I favor a corruption system. Every time you cast a big spell, you acquire some corruption points, probably with a random element and secretly tracked by the DM so you don't know exactly where you are. At certain corruption thresholds, you acquire various disadvantages and traits; push it far enough and you die or become an NPC monstrosity. Over time, you can "work off" your corruption, perhaps by gaining levels. (You may or may not be able to "work off" the disadvantages from passing thresholds.)

With a system like this, you don't have to give up casting big spells, but you do have to pace yourself. The secret tracking and random rolls make it scary and unpredictable, but the threshold points give you fair warning when you're taking it too far; it's not like you're perfectly fine and then you cast one spell too many and turn into a slobbering demon. And it's good flavor too.

Edit: Looks like Fanaelialae beat me to it. The only quibble I'd have is that if the "work off your punishment" mechanic is on a per-day basis, you have a variant of the 15-minute adventuring day problem, where the wizard is always asking to chill in town for a week so she can pay down her Wyrd. That's why I favor a per-level basis instead.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In 4E, almost every spell requires an attack roll, with 1 being an auto-miss and 20 being a crit, just like weapons. I have not observed that it makes magic more exciting or flavorful. It's just another die roll. They actually revised magic missile to make it auto-hit again; before that, it was a wizard's equivalent of bow and arrow.

In terms of "hazard mechanics," I favor a corruption system. Every time you cast a big spell, you acquire some corruption points, probably with a random element and secretly tracked by the DM so you don't know exactly where you are. At certain corruption thresholds, you acquire various disadvantages and traits; push it far enough and you die or become an NPC monstrosity. Over time, you can "work off" your corruption, perhaps by gaining levels. (You may or may not be able to "work off" the disadvantages from passing thresholds.)

With a system like this, you don't have to give up casting big spells, but you do have to pace yourself. The secret tracking and random rolls make it scary and unpredictable, but the threshold points give you fair warning when you're taking it too far; it's not like you're perfectly fine and then you cast one spell and turn into a slobbering demon. And it's good flavor too.

Edit: Looks like Fanaelialae beat me to it. The only quibble I'd have is that if the "work off your punishment" mechanic is on a per-day basis, you have a variant of the 15-minute adventuring day problem, where the wizard is always asking to chill in town for a week so she can pay down her Wyrd. That's why I favor a per-level basis instead.

I think you're right. With a system like the one I outlined, you'd need a way for a mage to be able to "dump" Wyrd quickly and effectively, otherwise the rest of the party is sitting on their hands waiting for the mage to recover from overuse of magic.

A level mechanic would probably work well, though I find it a tad "artificial" for my personal tastes.

I'd prefer something like an expensive ritual that takes a day to cast (which isn't all that bad, but largely negates its use in the midst of an adventure). Alternately, maybe the mage can summon and bargain with an otherworldly power, exchanging 1 point of Wyrd for 2 points of "temporary" Obligation. (Temporary in the sense that, once the Obligation is fullfilled, the mage's relationship to that entity ends.) In the end, these mechanics are just there to provide flavor and prevent the limitless spell slots mechanic from being abused, so as long as the consequences are significant enough, anything reasonable ought to work.