D&D General What Should Magic Be Able To Do, From a Gameplay Design Standpoint?

[Piperken]

...What I would like to do is narrow that conversation a little bit and focus a discussion here on what D&D magic should be able to do or accomplish specifically in the hands of PC casters, and specifically from a game design standpoint with an eye toward balance and playability.

Note that I am tagging this D&D general but I understand we are likely to discuss this primarily from a 5E perspective because it is the current game and one that is very hackable. But we can also certainly talk about it with regards to earlier editions, retroclones, and adjacent systems...

It'd be nice if the magic effects as written for some spells, could be redistributed in terms of time? I don't mean getting as granular as using segments. There's an intent between spells that take the classic 1 action (combat), ones that take 1 minute (exploring, divination, the like), 10 minutes (rituals) and 1 hour -- sometimes I'd prefer a more powerful effect on paper e.g. A column of flame that vortexes down from the sky, to strike enemies in a 5-10 foot radius vs. a lightning bolt that erupts from one's finger tips, to take longer.

Sometimes I'd like magic to be... This building is about to be invaded by demons. You must (glyph of) ward (ing) this area... in 10 minutes, using ad hoc material components that can be discovered on hand. If it's not done properly... Scenarios like this that you can game with?

 

[GobHag]

To some extent yes. A character should be able to research in a library instead of cast legend lore. I also think magic items or locations can give access to things like scrying or divination.

I don’t really want to see martial’s applying area damage much, or physically changing the battlefield.

I do. I want a Fighter of mid-level able to make a line attack against everyone in their path as they dash with unprecedented speed, I want Rogues to have BitD style 'Of course I already payed off the guard' cutbacks.

If you don't want this, then when you do play a martial simply don't use any abilities that break your precious verisimilitude and believability.

 

[Reynard]

I do. I want a Fighter of mid-level able to make a line attack against everyone in their path as they dash with unprecedented speed, I want Rogues to have BitD style 'Of course I already payed off the guard' cutbacks.

Those are cool ideas for a certain style of game.

If you don't want this, then when you do play a martial simply don't use any abilities that break your precious verisimilitude and believability.

It is a group endeavor. What other people choose to play and do also impacts your fun. It is not fair to tell another player not to play a (just as an example) dragonborn because you don't like "furry races."

 

[GobHag]

Those are cool ideas for a certain style of game.

Yeah, D&D.

It is a group endeavor. What other people choose to play and do also impacts your fun. It is not fair to tell another player not to play a (just as an example) dragonborn because you don't like "furry races."

That is what I'm suggesting. If you don't like that a Fighter can do anime Iai-style hundred man slaying or narrative-style mini-retcons, then don't do that if you play a Fighter or Rogue and don't complain when someone else do use them.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, D&D.

You may find that D&D means different things to different people, and different campaigns can have very different styles of play even with the same ruleset.

That is what I'm suggesting. If you don't like that a Fighter can do anime Iai-style hundred man slaying or narrative-style mini-retcons, then don't do that if you play a Fighter or Rogue and don't complain when someone else do use them.

Or, you know, find a group where people treat one another with enough respect to talk about this stuff at the outset.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd probably separate it between magic and spells. Spells are pretty much at the right point where they are now with discrete effects for each spell, throwing fireballs, opening locks, teleporting.

Magic can do even more, players might be able to access these effects as well. For instance, flying ships and castles, self-contained demi-planes (I know this was also high level spells back in the day), causing ruin to a kingdom. All of these things magic should be capable of, but they act more as plot points and powerful rituals that hard to access (and often stopping them is the goal of the PCs). Still, in the right campaign, a player spellcaster should be able to make their flying castle in the sky the materials gathered being the result of various adventures.

 

[Corinnguard]

Here is how PF2 views the four magical traditions in Pathfinder:

Arcane Arcane spellcasters use logic and rationality to categorize the magic inherent in the world around them. Because of its far-reaching approach, the arcane tradition has the broadest spell list, though it’s generally poor at affecting the spirit or the soul. Wizards are the most iconic arcane spellcasters, poring over tomes and grimoires, though arcane sorcerers study the secrets of their blood to unlock the power within themselves.

Divine The power of the divine is steeped in faith, the unseen, and belief in a power source from beyond the Material Plane. Clerics are the most iconic divine spellcasters, beseeching the gods to grant them their magic. Divine sorcerers can use the blood of their celestial or fiendish ancestors as a divine conduit, and champions call upon their gods to grant them martial prowess through divine guidance.

Occult The practitioners of occult traditions seek to understand the unexplainable, categorize the bizarre, and otherwise access the ephemeral in a systematic way. Bards are the most iconic occult spellcasters, collecting strange esoterica and using their performances to influence the mind or elevate the soul, and occult sorcerers strive to understand the mysterious power in their blood.

Primal An instinctual connection to and faith in the world, the cycle of day and night, the turning of the seasons, and the natural selection of predator and prey drive the primal tradition. Druids are the most iconic primal spellcasters, calling upon the magic of nature through deep faith and a connection to the plants and animals around them, and primal sorcerers call upon their fey or beast blood to harness the same natural energies.

 

[overgeeked]

Unsurprisingly, I think 4E nailed it. Split combat from non-combat magic. Balance combat magic against the other classes. Give everyone easy access to the ability to cast non-combat magic in the form of long, complicated, and expensive rituals…but keep a firm hand on how often those rituals are given out. Something like DCC RPG’s Quest For It idea as the gateway for ritual magic.

 

[FallenRX]

High Risk, High Reward.

Magic should be a powerful utilty thing, that comes with downsides, like it was in classic editions.

The fact it took basically a turn to cast in combat and if you got hit you couldnt cast it., that left you with low HP and risk, it should also be limited, and used wisely.
I feel the only issue with this designw as if you werent casting spells youd do nothing but be the worst character in the game, i feel cantrips filled the hole in this design well enough.

I feel since they removed this in 3e the balance and purpose of magic in dnd is completely gone, There is no reason to distinct the difference between martials and casters anymore, when there is no real downsides to being a caster.

I feel they worked best as unique heavy artillery units with limited ammo, but powerful and unique abilities, that are vunerable.
So much of DnD's design is built around that, that when you bring it back it makes sense.

Why do clerics have heavy armor? because they need to cast spells to heal allies in combat, they need high AC, why do bladesingers need high ac and martial attacks, becuase if they are fighting in the frontline if they are hit they cannot cast spells, so the AC is needed, and being good with weapons is a must, it why it works.

Without it is all wobbly nonsense, and just drags down the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which reminds me: another thing magic - at least the wizardly sort - should do is in many ways stand in for science.

Personally, I think it should not stand in for science--for exactly the same reason that, IRL, magic and science were effectively twins...and one did not survive. Specifically, the fundamental difference between "magic" and "science" as they came to be defined in the Renaissance and early modern period, very much was the difference between esoteric secret knowledge and public-accessible data. Magic required initiation, or at least some kind of special knowledge to "unlock". As what we call "science" (originally, "natural philosophy") grew stronger and bolder, what we call "magic" became taboo--seen as (at best) obscure and implausible fringe theories, rather than rigorous study. There's a reason Newton both seemed to value his alchemical and prophetic/Bible-interpretation studies...and kept them secret from most others, so that his work was only known to a select handful until decades after his death.

And this difference is clearly reflected in how Hermetic-style "mages" treated their knowledge, vs how "natural philosophers" treated theirs. Natural philosophy--and its descendant, "science"--created a culture of "publish or perish", of wishing to be widely known as a luminary or visionary staking out new territories on the field of knowledge, beating back the darkness of ignorance. Hermetic-style practitioners, which are pretty much the source of "wizardly" magic, absolutely did not want this. If you made any true "discoveries", you kept them to yourself, you inscribed them in secret tomes, maybe you shared them with one or two other people whom you trusted and with whom you had an occult correspondence--in the hope they would do the same with you. Initiation, obscurantism, mystery--the whole point of magic was to be impenetrable to anyone who was not "enlightened".

Science was, and has always been, much more "democratic" and "republican", in the ancient senses of those words: a thing for all peers (all men of learning, not just those who have been inaugurated into a secret society), and very specifically the Public Thing (res publica) to which any could contribute.

It's perfectly fine for the D&D Wizard to stand with a foot in each world on this one. As noted with Newton, and many people both before and after him (consider Darwin's obsession with fairies!), there were practitioners of "science" who were 100% also practitioners of "magic". But the two really are different, despite being (effectively) fraternal twins.