Fire & Forget Magic System: Should they replace it?

[EarthsShadow]

Who else amongst these boards thinks that the fire and forget spell system should be discarded for something else that makes more sense?

I am biased against the system, only because the system absolutely makes no sense at all in game play or in theory. What are your opinions?

 

[Jack Daniel]

It worked for Final Fantasy VIII...

 

[hong]

I am biased against the system, only because the system absolutely makes no sense at all in game play or in theory. What are your opinions?

It works fine for me.

How exactly is magic supposed to "make sense"?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Note to self: Don't post to the board after a 13 hour game session.

Actually, there are two alternatives in the SRD. Sorcerors and Bards use spontaneous casting. Psions and Psychic Warriors use power points.

Maybe they'll put together some type of Player's Option: Spells and Magic for 3rd edition. I imagine the whining and wailing would get quite annoying if they did that, though.

 

[Emiricol]

I'm looking forward to N20P's alternative buahahahaha

 

[FungiMuncher]

Well, I'd have to agree with the comment about magic making sense...

However, I'm not really fond of "fire & forget." Most of the non-magical abilities of characters can be used repeatedly. A fighter can swing a sword all day long, and a rogue can pick everyone's pocket if he dares. Why couldn't a spellcaster have some magical ability to use like this?

I'm not suggesting that we necessarily have to increase the spellcasters' over all power. At higher levels, the low level spells are less effective. For example, could there be a point during level progression where a wizard could simply cast prestidigitation at will? (without the high cost of the Innate Spell feat) An intermediate point, of course, would be a skill check of some sort. Even magic missile might be fine this way, if a success roll was used somehow.

Assuming it was all balanced, how would this impact the "flavor" of playing a spellcaster?

FM

 

[Dinkeldog]

Uh, sorcerers and psions exist, too.

Why do I have the feeling I'm going to be mentioning them a lot in this thread?

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Well, I'd have to agree with the comment about magic making sense...

However, I'm not really fond of "fire & forget." Most of the non-magical abilities of characters can be used repeatedly. A fighter can swing a sword all day long, and a rogue can pick everyone's pocket if he dares. Why couldn't a spellcaster have some magical ability to use like this?

Because the spellcasters in D&D are powerful, but they have to ration their power carefully. They have to think about when to use their power. Allowing spellcasters to cast spells all day would drastically alter their very concept in D&D.

But if you want something on these lines, you could allow spellcasters to get the "Trigger Power" feat for psychics. In this way they could cast a few low-power spells repeatedly as well...

More drastic changes are certainly possible - but the inherent assumptions in the D&D settings would be drastically changed as well. I would be very careful before introducing such changes...

 

[Grazzt]

Who else amongst these boards thinks that the fire and forget spell system should be discarded for something else that makes more sense?

I have no problems with the system as it is.

Besides, since we are talking about magic (which isn't real to begin with unless ya ask David Copperfield or someone ), how do we know what makes sense and what doesn't? Just my opinion though...

 

[hong]

Well, I'd have to agree with the comment about magic making sense...

However, I'm not really fond of "fire & forget." Most of the non-magical abilities of characters can be used repeatedly. A fighter can swing a sword all day long, and a rogue can pick everyone's pocket if he dares. Why couldn't a spellcaster have some magical ability to use like this?

The spellcasting classes are generally balanced on the assumption that they don't have as much "always-on" power, but they can dish out lots of it in one burst if necessary. This is for various reasons, I think primarily for balance and flavour reasons.

And really, I don't think that's such a bad thing. If magic is always available, it becomes just another weapon. Instead of using a bow, you throw fireballs; instead of a sword, you use chill touch, or something similar. In terms of non-combat abilities, who needs a rogue if your wizard can cast knock and invisibility spells all day long? Sounds pretty uninteresting to me.

This isn't something unique to D&D; most RPGs institute some form of limit on how many times you can use magic in a given period. It might be spell slots per day, or power points, or mana, or fatigue. In the end, it's still the same basic idea: you have to pick and choose when you use your magic.

I'm not suggesting that we necessarily have to increase the spellcasters' over all power. At higher levels, the low level spells are less effective.

Not necessarily. A magic missile is still very useful at 15th level, when fighting heaps of incorporeal enemies (like we found out in the last two sessions). A fireball will still do useful damage, even if it doesn't kill things outright. If one fireball doesn't do the trick, just use two. Invisibility is still invisibility, and lasts longer at high levels to boot.

By contrast, you don't often need that many top-level spells in a session. Something with 20 hp is just as dead if you do 30 or 60 hp damage to it.