dave2008
Legend
Sorry! It wasn't you, I mentioned the wrong person!If I may...what answer was that? I don't want to take credit for something I didn't do, and I honestly don't remember weighing in on this one!
Sorry! It wasn't you, I mentioned the wrong person!If I may...what answer was that? I don't want to take credit for something I didn't do, and I honestly don't remember weighing in on this one!
That's definitely one way to do it. I've previously suggested that a generic Fireball or Magic Missile is what the upstart Wizard's Guild teaches, as part of their effort to standardize and codify the arcane curriculum for mass distribution. Meanwhile it's the traditionalists, the lone wizards in their towers with a handful of personal apprentices, that still teach Invoke the Sovereign Pyre and Inerrant Adamant Dart complete with all the little personal flourishes.I usually dont use the spells in the PHB as ''spells'' in fiction: they are a description of the effect produced by expending a spell slot on a custom/personnal/setting specific spell.
ie: Wizard Bob in my game doesnt cast ''Fireball'', he cast ''Invoke the Sovereign Pyre'' as spell creating the ''Fireball'' effect, designed by the cultist of Imix somewhere in the Hordelands and who found its way to his spellbook when he traded his best shoes and a nice bottle of chianti for it.
I don't think it would be too hard to do, especially if you had enough spells or simply reskinned existing spells in some way so that they seemed different. Your PC may have a standard magic missile and you give an NPC the same spell, but it conjures a flying snake that inflicts damage-resistance-ignoring piercing damage. The PCs don't have to know that they're otherwise identical spells.It gets to the fundamental question of what magic spells are, what wizards are, and how much or little like science magic is in any given D&D world. Is there a big library somewhere with all the spells ever developed? Do wizards go to not-Hogwarts and that's why they all know all the same spells? Are spells (generally) easy and safe to cast because they have been tested and tweaked for centuries?
Personally, I think it would be fun if all spells were unique to specific casters. If you gathered up a bunch of 3PP magic books you could probably do it, too. Every wizard and warlock manipulates the forces of "magic" in their own way and creates their own spells. Throw in some sort of spell check and failure consequence and it would feel very different from regular D&D magic without necessarily screwing up the balance of things (and maybe balance out casters a little bit). It's probably too much, but it is fun to think about.
I like for the players to have free reign over how they describe their characters. I think keeping a lot of setting details, like "how magic works", open and unresolved can help with this.Yeah I really like to let players decide how their magic works and what it looks like.
I love stuff like that. That's aewsome.
This post makes me miss Earthdawn's magic system.I like a lot of what the term The Weave implies about magic, even if it's not mechanically reflected. It nods at an interconnectedness, how everything holds everything else together, and wants to stay in a relative position. So, to me, I've always pictured "standard" magic spells as a temporary flow or direction of power that is particularly stable, a Lagrange Point of sorts. Magic Missile? As long as you can interact with the Weave, it barely requires much of a nudge, though it dissipates quickly and only channels a small chunk of power. The higher the spell level, the more it requires forcing magic out of pattern, the harder it is to pull together, the more specific of intention you need. Of course, as you become more familiar with the manipulation of magic, the more you see where seemingly paradoxical positions can actually be rather self-reinforcing.
So, your cantrips, as I like to view them, those can almost be discovered by accident, frequently are in fact. If you play with magic, it just makes sense. Was there a "first" spellcaster of it, an inventor? Sure, but it's not like they claim some unique understanding of it. The spells that still bear the creator's name are exactly that because they stand alone in un-intuitiveness. Not impossible to discover of your own volition, but not necessarily likely outside of some truly inspired spark of creation.
Now, in that context, the common spells, the ones without a name attached, are downright ancient, because they've been invented and discovered thousands of times over. I'll admit, this logic needs a bit of finessing when you get to things like 9th level ones, so I'm still trying to think how to fit those into this theory.
In most of my settings:Who invented the common spells?
The Quasi-Dieities are mostly super ancient. The first arcanists are either dead or quasi-deities at this point.How old are they?
They can name one if they want.Do you give players input on these questions?
Amateurs! If you can't take out an entire city block, it's not worth doing!Waziri magic is fundamentally analytical and imitative. It can be extremely dangerous to cast Waziri-type magic without a proven arcane formula first (as in, "blow up a whole building" dangerous)

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.