The Cost of Using Magic?

[Stormonu]

The funniest is Mac, he loves the concept and is never married to equipment. They are just tools to him, magic or otherwise. He has lost three major swords...but realized that the major losses are replaced by other magic and his experience is about 15% higher than everyone else at the table. He's loving it.

Steve

This quote, while about another subject, got me thinking about something that I don't think has ever been proposed (directly).

What if using magic and/or magic items (perhaps even only certain spells/items) to complete a challenge lowered the amount of experience you got? This would be slightly different that 3E's XP cost for spells/making items in that it affects the beneficiary (i.e., the wizard who makes a sword doesn't lose XP, the fighter who uses it does) and it doesn't take away existing XP, but instead lowers the XP gained from an encounter.

The reasoning would be using magic is a crutch, so you learn less from the experience. This would, conceivably, help to balance out the use of magic items vs. using your own abilities; characters with lots of powerful magic items would advance slower, but would probably be able to face more difficult challenges, whilst gear-strapped or magic-lite group/characters would advance quicker.

IF this were to be implemented, would you rather see that the item subtracts a flat rate or a %?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think XP costs have been some of the most reviled rules when and where they've existed. 3e multiclassing penalties, item creation, and spells are examples. The XP charts by class for older editions were also a problem and are not missed much. Altering the rate at which your character advances as compared to others is just not a good mechanic in the D&D framework. Balance is about what your character can do in a round, not in a day and definitely not over his career.

If you want to talk about costs, I think it's better to talk in terms of in-game costs rather than relatively metagame things like XP.

 

[Yora]

Even leaving out the whole thing about how such a thing would affect peoples behavior in using magic, this would be a nightmare to track. And unlike in video games, everything you do with numbers has to be calculated by hand.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yeah, too much bookkeeping. Plus it opens a difficulty slippery slope: should you get fewer XP because you rolled well and an encounter was easier than anticipated?

It's a fantasy roleplaying game; you shouldn't penalize players for actually using fantasy elements like magic andmlagic items.

 

[the Jester]

Ugh, I don't like it. It makes me think of dms who give less xp when the party's well-conceived plan lets them defeat foes easier than the dm likes.

A challenge is a challenge is a challenge, and your resources are your resources are your resources. To me, your magic items are the same exact sort of thing as your nonmagical sword and armor. If you're going to call one a crutch, I'd call them all crutches.

 

[Grydan]

Ugh, I don't like it. It makes me think of dms who give less xp when the party's well-conceived plan lets them defeat foes easier than the dm likes.

A challenge is a challenge is a challenge, and your resources are your resources are your resources. To me, your magic items are the same exact sort of thing as your nonmagical sword and armor. If you're going to call one a crutch, I'd call them all crutches.

Any PC that manages to survive a combat whilst naked, blindfolded, and having both arms tied behind their back should totally get bonus XP.

 

[grimslade]

A cost for magic? I like a price for certain effects. Large rituals to oppose a demon invasion should require sacrifice. Using a Potion of Invisibility to sneak into the Summoners sanctum should not be penalized.
That being said, if your campaign is a grim and gritty Conan style magic is evil type campaign, sure throw an XP penalty for using the corrupting and sinister energies of the arcane. Just let your players know it up front.

 

[SensoryThought]

This also relates to the Vancian magic argument. Vancian magic spells can be more powerful if you cannot change your spells once memorized and have only a few per day. The currently discussed 5e model of Vancian with some substitution and at will abilities seems wack to me as it removes the 'cost' of having powerful spells.

One idea I had for spells was a rip off from the anime Bleach. Their kido (spell abilities) are learned with a full and lengthy incantation that takes time to cast. Once you are skilled enough, they can cast at will by naming the power, but the fast attack is less powerful. But they can still cast at max power by doing a full incantation.

Perhaps you could have spells be cast in a standard action for a lesser effect or at a longer time (1 round per spell level?) for a massive effect. Thus no incantation fireballs could hit one target for 2d6 damage or you could 3 round cast full incantation for a burst 5 10d6 fireball.

 

[Stormonu]

Yeah, I figured the nightmare would be in bookkeeping, so if it were to come up, I'm fairly sure it should be an optional module thing.

However, it would be one way to return the "it takes the wizard 2,500 XP to get to 2nd level, and the fighter only 2,000".

 

[Aenghus]

One way I can think of to reduce the book-keeping, and really hit players where it hurts, is to penalise everyone with the same amount of xp for one person using particular sorts of magic, like "I win" buttons.

I think this is better than having one person fork up the xp, as other players may be happy for one person to make a sacrifice, after all the player can could even drop that PC and start a new one, but if the whole group have to make the sacrifice they may as a group be more reluctant to just resort to flashy magic to solve problems.