Channeling vs Memory magic

[POPE]

Hello,

I have a few questions. What is really the difference between using channeling based magic [Wheel of Time or Midnight] or memory based casting[regular dnd] ? What are the pros and cons of each? Which gives more flavor? Realism? Can both coexist in the same game? If so how should it be done? Who would be more eccective at low, mid or high levels? I could really use a lot help here.

Thanks in advance,

POPE.

 

[Starman]

Well, the major difference between the two would be that a spell preparer (they prepare their spells in D&D now, not memorize them) spends time each day preparing the spells he wants to use. The only spells he can cast are the ones he has prepared. In WoT or Midnight, a spellcaster can cast any spell they know based on available slots (WoT) or spell energy (Midnight). Both of these systems have methods for going beyond what you normally can, but it is dangerous. The benefit of spellcasters in WoT and Midnight over a standard D&D wizard is their flexibility.

Flavor is up to the GM and player.

Do you really want to ask about realism when it comes to magic?

There's no reason you couldn't have both types as long as the classes are balanced against each other.

I would imagine they would both be effective at all levels if you balanced the classes.

Starman

 

[Starman]

Darn double post.

 

[Kesh]

For gameplay purposes, the real differences tend to be scale and rules.

Memorization magic can range from simple cantrips all the way up to Wish. Literally anything is possible, provided you know the necessary spell. On the flip-side, channeling magic tends to limit your abilities somewhat. It's easier to pull off simple spells, but world-shattering stuff generally isn't possible.

The other difference is in dealing with the rules. Memorized spells have rigid, defined effects and targets. It's fairly easy to plan for what a character may do, based on what spells they know. With channeling, it's a bit more difficult. Some systems are limited enough you can still plan, but others (like Mongoose's Chaos Magic) can provide dozens of options to even low-level characters. It's much more difficult to predict their actions, and also bogs down the game a bit if rules become unclear.

 

[Mark]

Since Prepared and Spontaneous magic do both exist in D&D/d20 as it is today (and are generally balanced with one another), it might be interesting to see if anyone can develop a balanced way to adjust the spontaneous casting rules so they can still exist along side prepared magic but have the feel of those that stand alone in other systems. Most spontaneous casting rules written in systems that don't include prepared magic rules would be unbalanced alongside the prepared magic rules as they are currently written, I think most would agree. To follow that logic you'd almost have to assume that those same spontaneous casting rules written for other systems can't be balanced alongside other aspects of the current D&D/d20 system, right?

 

[Protosift]

Not sure on midnight, but another dmension of most channeling systems I've seen is he use of spells that can be cast on a variety of spell levels. WoT's Affinity system further developes this concept by allowing you to cast a weave you have all the affinities for at one weave slot lower. I hope that makes sense.

 

[POPE]

So what if two spellcasters of the same level with access to the same spells applied to your adventurng group, which would you pick? Isone realy more versatile than theothr? More powerful? I am trying to learn the WOT channelling [cannot figure over channeling], is there no similar thing for those that prepare?

And yes realism was the wrong word to choose. But even so which one do you think is the more likely choice if an apprentice had to chose?