NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eric Tolle" data-source="post: 5539089" data-attributes="member: 53859">I think it might be helpful to go back and consider a couple of fantasy sources in this debate over balance:Let's go back to the source for D&D magic: Spells from Jack Vance's "Dying Earth. This spells are powerful, no doubt, and they don't really follow any rhyme or reason. But they have the following characteristics in the stories I read:1: Magic is an Ultimate. that is, magic overcomes whatever mundane obstacle is set before the mage- thge only thing that can MAYBE stop magic is magic. If the spell is a teleport spell, it teleports the mage to wherever he wants to go, whether on the Earth, or to a far star., An attack spell invariably kills the opponent unless another spell neutralizes it (I might allow a PC to survive, unconscious and critically wounded with the expenditure of something like a Fate or Hero point).2. Magic is a limited tactical or strategic resource: That is, a really top of the line mage may be able to forceably impress on his mind up to six spells at a time; an average mage could do four, and a talented apprentice, two. "Memorizing" spells takes quite some time, at least half an hour per spell, and it appears that a mage must be well rested and calm. I may not limit it to 2-6 spells per day, but a mage right out of combat couldn't memorize spells.3. Spells are rare. No mage alive can actually make a new spell- they are all relics from a golden age. There are at most a couple of hundred spells existing today, and no mage knows all of them. Getting taught a new spell would be the object of a major quest; finding a new spell would be an epic quest. And honestly, a good chunk of the spells should be interesting, but useless for an adventurer's purpose.4. Spells are of dramatic utility. Funny how after pondering over their spellbooks, mages seem to only memorize spells that are exactly right for the situation. In game terms, I wouldn't even require players to say what spells their characters have memorized. They simply say which of their known spells they are casting, and it is assumed that they figured out what spell they would need.5. Spells are flashy, loud, baroque and all in all very unsubtle. There's no simply "read minds" spell: if anything, it would involve a silver decanter with random thoughts spoken by a golem floating within, or something. Imagine the weirdness quotient of D&D spells pumped up to 11., The end result is one where mages have to hoard their use of spells, and use them at only the most crucial moments. Naturally there's a large need for mundane skills and accomplished wizards may also be accomplished politickers, swordsmen, or otherwise resourceful.The thing is, I can't really think of how this might be applies to D&D directly- it sounds more like something I could apply to a different system.Other literature/systems:Avatar the Last Airbender: Magic is control of elemental forces, and casters can do highly impressive things in a limited area, from area effect fire or water blwsts, to flying. On the other hand, highly talented mundane warriors can regularly kick the asses of our magic users, to the point where they'd rather run than fight.The Dresden Files: sniper rifle wins.Witch World (Andre Norton): Magic can do some damn impressive things, ranging from mind control to rousing ancient gods. However, it takes intense eyes-closed-going-on-a-mental-journey levels of concentration and extended rituals to do anything at a distance. In combat, you're better off relying on swords, dart guns and lightning whips.Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Again, magic is an ultimate, capable of rearranging the entire world. However spells are difficult to cast, have unforseen costs, and unless you've turned into a Big Bad for the season, take a long time to cast. In combat, better rely on your stabby friends and your running ability.The Taltos series: magic has a lot of utility and combat value; teleporting to known locations is common. However there's a lot of counters to magic, and one of the biggest is that a lot of people know magic. Also, "No matter how subtle a wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." And it's funny how many of the major magicians prefer to carry swords for combat.The Laundry series (Charles Stross): magic is a highly useful branch of advanced mathematics, which seems to require the use of a variety of foci. While there is some improvisational element to it, advanced effects seem to require rituals...and then there's the whole sanity issue. It also seems that people with automatic weapons can easily take out a mage- at no time does our protagonist seem bulletproof. Bureaucracy and library research may be more important skills than magic.Time Powers: you don't use magic; magic uses YOU.The  Steerswoman Series (<a href="http://rot13.com/index.php" target="_blank">Rot 13</a>) Zntvp vf n fpvrapr. Yvgrenyyl whfg fpvrapr ybbxrq ng guebhtu n aba-fpvragvsvp jbeyqivrj.Conclusions: the interesting thing is that nearly all of these literary systems have parallels in rpgs, though not necessarily D&D. So I think that looked at in terms of balance, it's not that difficult to imagine tweeking things so that magic may be powerful but more of a strategic/dramatic resource, while conventional skills and weapons may be more useful in the short term. Of course in that case, one of the important things to do would be to give mages something to do besides cast spells. I think that one of the classic limitations of D&D is that mages are so limited toward casting spells, with possibly a few knowledges tacked on. D&D mages are basically defined by the spells they know, while other mages in literature are defined by other traits. You really don't define Harry Dresdin or John Constantine by the name tpf the spells they cast, so why can't we do this in D&D?</blockquote>

Verification