Cackling Manaically at the 13 Aug Legends and Lore

[the Jester]

I thought that was items that allowed characters that do extraordinary things that bothered people, rather than scrolls and potions.

Maybe I should do a poll about it.

For some of us, easy magic item creation of any sort is problematic to the tone of the campaign we want to run. It's hard to have a "treasure every potion, every magic item is rare and wonderful!" game when the pcs can take a day off to make those items themselves.

(Personally, I favor a system in which pcs can learn appropriate item creation feats/skills/whatever, but then must know the formula for a given magic item to craft it. Also, weird ingredients- making a magic item should be an adventure in itself, in this style of play.)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

completely without mystery

Just speaking personally, but given that I've always had access to a PHB, and that the spell descriptions are laid out, like, right there, I've never seen anything like "mysterious magic" from a spell in D&D ever.

Artifacts, magical locations, weird monsters? Yes.

Spells? No.

 

[MarkB]

Just speaking personally, but given that I've always had access to a PHB, and that the spell descriptions are laid out, like, right there, I've never seen anything like "mysterious magic" from a spell in D&D ever.

Artifacts, magical locations, weird monsters? Yes.

Spells? No.

Very true. And even aside from that, seeing a spell in action just once pretty much bursts the bubble on any mystery it had. Waiting a day to do it again instead of half an hour isn't going to do anything to maintain the suspense.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Makes sense to me. Instead of having a fixed mechanic by "class", instead, each spell has its own rules on:
- Casting Time
- Duration
- Preparation/Refreshment Time


I also like the idea of a few spells being cast yearly or only once a lifetime.

Imagine a Disintegrate Spell with no Save, no attack roll. The enemy is just dead. But once you've cast it, you can never ever cast it again...

Of course these spells won't work in practice of an ongoing game with supplements. If there is one such spell only, a lifetime limitations is terrible. But if there are splat books and each introduces one or more of these spells...

Maybe the idea of classifying spells by complexity makes sense:

• Cantrip - Immediate refreshes after cast, never leaves the caster's mind.
• Simple - The spell doesn't leave memory entirey, but it takes a few minutes to reprepare the spell.
• Complex - The spell leaves memory entirely and the caster's memory is a mess - he cannot prepare a new spell in this slot until after a long rest. Most traditional D&D spells are complex.
• Exotic - The spell leaves memory entirely and the caster's memory is a mess. He cannot prepare a new spell in this slot until after a long rest. But the spell is actually resisting new memorization - it takes 4 weeks of downtime for the spell to become available again.
• Unique - Like an Exotic spell, but the spell can never be cast again. Worse even - it alters the caster's mind so that it eventually becomes unable to cast any other unique spells. The mind can heal from this change, but it requires eschewing any magic - even the simplest cantrip - for years. (Every caster that has ever reached this limit is usually trying to develop ways to fight this limitation - a few even survive their self-experiments, and a very select few also succeed, regaining a chance to cast a few more unique spells, some even a spell they cast before.)

 

[SkidAce]

Philosophy and Humor

Second, magic doesn't make sense. It's magic. It doesn't exist. Someone made it up. Along with everything that it entails. The idea of resting a day to recover spells? Someone made that up. There's no "sense" to it. The guy thought, "Hey, I want to make magic exhausting, so I'll require a night's rest to get it back." He could just as easily have said, "Hey, I want to make magic exhausting, so I'll require a short rest to recover it." Attacking encounter-based powers on an "It doesn't make sense!" level doesn't make sense. Ultimately, it's just aesthetics.

While totally true, perhaps its an aesthetic that has become part of the genre for some individuals, thus changing it makes no sense in the context of the way "it should be" to them.

I think the aesthetics of the "Mona Lisa" should stay the same...

 

[Lwaxy]

I find 5 min a bit silly as I see expending magical energy as taxing, but everyone can adapt that as it fits in heir campaign.

Personally, I'll stick with regainable spell points in either case so it matters not.

 

[howandwhy99]

Just speaking personally, but given that I've always had access to a PHB, and that the spell descriptions are laid out, like, right there, I've never seen anything like "mysterious magic" from a spell in D&D ever.

Artifacts, magical locations, weird monsters? Yes.

Spells? No.

I run D&D as a reality puzzle game, so the Laws of Magic, whatever they happen to be for that campaign, are unknown to the players. They have a decent common language explanation of what to expect, but in no way does it cover everything. Spells are in the DMG ultimately. Players learn how they work through play. Sort of like combat for Fighters, and so on for other classes too.

Very true. And even aside from that, seeing a spell in action just once pretty much bursts the bubble on any mystery it had. Waiting a day to do it again instead of half an hour isn't going to do anything to maintain the suspense.

Like I said, a fireball spell doesn't dictate how it will operate in every single circumstance. Sometimes it ignites the Grease spell at the target's feet. Leather armor makes a save, but not having cast it upon leather armor before the caster doesn't know that. Casting it on another caster who has a scroll in hand almost certainly destroys the scroll. And on and on and on. Spells are not simple, single explanations that are repeated the same way every single time. That's boring to me. That's why I like to keep them a mystery, an ongoing learning experience where experience by the player actually matters.



One other thing:
For me, the game game shifts radically depending upon class. This is most obviously seen with a simple test. What happens when everyone in the party is the same class?

If everyone is a Fighter or warrior subclass, is combat expected to be the major selling point? It's what everyone is going to be best suited for.

If everyone is a Thief or Assassin or basic sneaky type, is covert action expected to be the primary adventure? (Remember the "Thief" videogame where melee was a *bad idea*)

A team of Wizards might explore an ancient tomb of old sorcerers looking to discover arcane power rather than spend years trying to figure it out for themselves.

A team of Clerics might attempt to convert a goblin tribe to become Lawful Good according to the specific deities each picked.

For me, D&D really isn't all about combat, that includes magic and magic casters. Besides many of the other classes aren't that suited to combat and are better off avoiding it when adventuring when possible. Having some fighters along just in case, of course, does help. But so does having a thief, magic guy, holy man, etc. Diversity can be an asset.

 

[Dannager]

While totally true, perhaps its an aesthetic that has become part of the genre for some individuals, thus changing it makes no sense in the context of the way "it should be" to them.

I think the aesthetics of the "Mona Lisa" should stay the same...

And, of course, the aesthetics of the Mona Lisa have stayed the same, barring degradation over time and a handful of restorations. The original still resides in the Louvre. It's there, and as far as I know it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

That said, it hasn't stopped countless people from reinterpreting it over the years, both as ostensibly serious art and as parody, pop, or contemporary. The fact that something has always been a certain way doesn't mean that it represents everything it could be, and should never hold a creative vision back.

The aesthetics of magic are similar, but much less sacred. They exist to facilitate a game, and thus are governed in part by what is enjoyable to play with, rather than purely by what sits well in one's personal sense of aesthetics. One could certainly argue for a mathematically-rich interpretation of magic wherein intricate formulae govern its use, and one's aesthetics may prompt them to argue for those formulae being translated into gameplay mechanics. That does not, however, recommend them for the role, as such a system would almost certainly turn magic into a tedious slog.

The question then becomes: to what degree do we allow personal aesthetics and the-way-it's-always-been thinking determine how game mechanics should evolve moving forward? I would much rather err on the side of developing mechanics that are fun to play with rather than developing mechanics that are familiar. The hobby's success depends on a steady influx of new players, and they don't care at all for what is familiar, because they aren't familiar with anything - they only care about whether the game is fun. The only ones who care about familiarity are those who have been playing the game for a protracted period of years.

Obviously the ideal solution is a system that is both familiar and imminently playable. I'm not sure that's possible, since those in the familiarity camp are relatively inflexible in what they will accept, it seems, and the magic system as it's worked in the past has often been quite far from imminently playable.

The best possible scenario would be one in which the game's designers weren't afraid to make bold design choices that are attractive to new players and capable of making the game appealing to a generation of young people, and where the current D&D fanbase took the changes like a group of grown-ups capable of getting past the changes without destroying the hobby from the inside-out.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I'm all for spells having variable recharge periods, as long as the Wizard is preparing/choosing all his spells at the beginning of the day.

 

[Dannager]

One other thing:
For me, the game game shifts radically depending upon class. This is most obviously seen with a simple test. What happens when everyone in the party is the same class?

I think this is a function of the lens you view the game through, rather than a necessary extension of what would happen if all players were from the same class. Certainly, a party full of assassins is more likely to engage in stealth than a party full of fighters, but it doesn't preclude combat from being the focus. Remember that game Assassin's Creed where melee was a great idea?