D&D 5E How Should 5E Magic Work?

[CleverNickName]

How would you like to see the magic mechanic working in 5E?

Vancian: spells are sorted into spell levels, and spellcasters can only cast a certain number of spells from a certain spell level per day. The caster may or may not have to pick or "memorize" these spells in advance.

Magic Point: all casters have a certain pool of Magic Points (MP), that replinishes over time. Each spell has an MP cost, which the caster must "pay" out of his pool of MP before casting.

Powers: spells are sorted into categories: at-will, encounter, daily, ritual, etc. At-will spells can be cast every round, daily spells can only be cast once per day, encounter spells once per encounter, rituals could only be cast under special conditions and circumstances, and so on and so forth.

If you had to choose, which one would you pick?

 

[Aramax]

In a perfect world
vancian wizards
spell point sorcerers
at will warlocks

 

[CleverNickName]

In a perfect world
vancian wizards
spell point sorcerers
at will warlocks

Yikes, you would want three different ways to cast fireball? That sounds like a bookkeeping nightmare. (Inevitably, someone is going to want to multiclass and play a Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock. )

 

[Incenjucar]

Yes.

I see no reason why powers of any sort have to work exactly one way.

Heck, a power point system would be fantastic for martial abilities, for adding that extra OOMPH to your attacks in a very granular manner.

 

[CleverNickName]

Heck, a power point system would be fantastic for martial abilities, for adding that extra OOMPH to your attacks in a very granular manner.

You don't necessarily need to use a magic mechanic for that. I remember back in the BECM days, I would let my players "burn" hit points to add bonuses to their attack and damage, point-for-point.

 

[Aramax]

Yikes, you would want three different ways to cast fireball? That sounds like a bookkeeping nightmare. (Inevitably, someone is going to want to multiclass and play a Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock. )

I think it would attract the largest group of gamers

 

[Incenjucar]

You don't necessarily need to use a magic mechanic for that. I remember back in the BECM days, I would let my players "burn" hit points to add bonuses to their attack and damage, point-for-point.

Also good.

Ultimately we're just trying to get to "I create a large area of searing flame" or "I throw a punch at the guy that could kill a bison."

You can get to that goal in any number of ways.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

How would you like to see the magic mechanic working in 5E?

Well.

If you had to choose, which one would you pick?

I prefer Vancian, but think the game should offer a way to do characters with all three methods.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think it would attract the largest group of gamers

Maybe...or maybe not. Some gamers hate the Vancian magic system so much that they would avoid any game that uses it. Likewise, some of the old-school gamers would drop it and walk away at the first mention of an "at-will power."

Whatever the designers decide, I certainly hope they don't try to "be all things to all people" when it comes to game mechanics. That philosophy works fine for conceptual things like setting, mood, and tone...but when it comes to the numbers, they need to be streamlined, efficient, and simple.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Of the three, I think spell points are the best starting point for a magic system. They're the most easily understandable for non-rpgers, and they're less complex than keeping track of piles of spell slots. It also encourages fun mechanics for using and replenishing the points.

Vancian has to be out there, though I'm not a huge fan of it myself.

Warlocks are fine, but there's no need to give at-wills around (and no need for per encounter anything). Reserve feats or their like are fine for those who need them.

I'd like to see other magic systems. The Elements of Magic or Words of Power approach is great.

There's also the idea of rituals/incantations to consider.

 

[SKyOdin]

No need to strictly limit ourselves to what has come before in terms of exact mechanics. There are a lot more options that jut those three.

I understand why Vancian spell-casting is so popular for D&D. To a certain a level, it is much easier to track than point-based systems, since you just need to remember which spells you have cast already that day. However, there are a few key problems with it that need to be addressed. While it is pretty easy to track at low levels, when you have only a few spells, if becomes significantly harder to track at higher levels when a Wizard can memorize upwards of four dozen spells from a list of hundreds of spells. There is also the problem that magic spells don't scale well: a level 3 spell starts out as a rare and powerful spell, but eventually becomes a relatively weak and common one.

I think a heavily modified Vancian system that addresses some of these issues would work great for D&D. For one, it would be nice to be able to scale magic spells better. What if you could prepare a level 1 spell like magic missile in a level 6 slot, and it be as strong as any other level 6 spell? 3E metamagic tried to achieve that, but was limited by its "one-size-fits-all" feat approach. What if spells had scalable parameters built into the spell description itself, based on spell level? Alternatively, we could change the spell slot system from a set of ever raising tiers of spells to a simpler Minor, Lesser, Greater (all three of which are prepared daily) scheme, where spells are inherently designed to scale with level better. In this system, a spell like Fireball would always be a Lesser spell, but would do more damage and have a bigger area of effect at higher level. New spells would still be unlocked as the Wizard goes up in level. That way, spells meant to be used less often won't eventually become readily available at higher levels, and the Wizard class complexity would remain reasonably manageable as character level grows.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm all for scalable powers. Powers should have a minimum level and advance from there whenever possible, sometimes even in branching paths (when it's sane to do so). 4E did it first with at-wills and some powers-almost-like-earlier-powers, then themes, and finally with the skald, and I use them exclusively in the classes I build.

Whenever possible, a player should be able to choose for their character to be a souped-up version of their level 1 self at later levels, because sometimes you can make the exact character you want from XP 1.

--

That all said, Vancian wizards will exist. That's just a guarantee. We just don't need to limit ourselves to that.

 

[mlund]

I don't see why the "Powers" option includes At-Will, Daily, Ritual, and excludes Encounters.

Personally, I want At-Will Spells, Encounter Spells, and Rituals - as well as the ability to burn Healing Surges / Hit Points to over-cast your normal limits in an Encounter.

- Marty Lund

 

[Tony Vargas]

Magical and non-magical character abilities should utilize the same mechanics and level progressions. Magic should be distinguished by what it does, rather than the mechanics it uses to do it. Keep the game consistent and balanced.

 

[Bobbum Man]

Maybe there's a better way altogether that is neither vancian, AEDU or point based.

I'm not sure what I want in terms of resource management for special fx, but I know that I don't want the bookkeeping nightmare of having 8 different magic systems. Especially if I have to use those rules to make NPC's.

I can tell you that I want to see an end to generalist casters. I would prefer that specialist casters are the norm.

I can tell you that magic-users had better have some sort of at-will abilities. No more casting your single light spell and reaching for the crossbow. That was one thing that 4E got right.

 

[Aramax]

Yikes, you would want three different ways to cast fireball? That sounds like a bookkeeping nightmare. (Inevitably, someone is going to want to multiclass and play a Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock. )

No need to strictly limit ourselves to what has come before in terms of exact mechanics. There are a lot more options that jut those three.

I understand why Vancian spell-casting is so popular for D&D. To a certain a level, it is much easier to track than point-based systems, since you just need to remember which spells you have cast already that day. However, there are a few key problems with it that need to be addressed. While it is pretty easy to track at low levels, when you have only a few spells, if becomes significantly harder to track at higher levels when a Wizard can memorize upwards of four dozen spells from a list of hundreds of spells. There is also the problem that magic spells don't scale well: a level 3 spell starts out as a rare and powerful spell, but eventually becomes a relatively weak and common one.

I think a heavily modified Vancian system that addresses some of these issues would work great for D&D. For one, it would be nice to be able to scale magic spells better. What if you could prepare a level 1 spell like magic missile in a level 6 slot, and it be as strong as any other level 6 spell? 3E metamagic tried to achieve that, but was limited by its "one-size-fits-all" feat approach. What if spells had scalable parameters built into the spell description itself, based on spell level? Alternatively, we could change the spell slot system from a set of ever raising tiers of spells to a simpler Minor, Lesser, Greater (all three of which are prepared daily) scheme, where spells are inherently designed to scale with level better. In this system, a spell like Fireball would always be a Lesser spell, but would do more damage and have a bigger area of effect at higher level. New spells would still be unlocked as the Wizard goes up in level. That way, spells meant to be used less often won't eventually become readily available at higher levels, and the Wizard class complexity would remain reasonably manageable as character level grows.

This is one of those great ideas on the drawing room but I think when presented in the real world would double the page count needed for spells(and I need those pages for my 3 magic systems )

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't see why the "Powers" option includes At-Will, Daily, Ritual, and excludes Encounters.

Sorry, it was an honest mistake. I don't play 4E, and it had been years since I had even read the book...I totally forgotten about the per-encounter powers.

 

[Aramax]

Sorry, it was an honest mistake. I don't play 4E, and it had been years since I had even read the book...I totally forgotten about the per-encounter powers.

Invokers

 

[billd91]

I voted Vancian, but I'm reasonably flexible on that as long as the scope of magic isn't gimped to keep martial abilities in the same scope. And I'm not referring just to damage or the ability to neutralize enemies. I'm talking about the open-endedness of magic when it comes to manipulating reality.

 

[Dragonblade]

Ideally I want multiple magic using classes, each with their own unique yet balanced sub-system that doesn't overshadow non-casting classes.

I want all classes to have some at-will magic, so even if there are Vancian wizards they never have to resort to a crossbow.

I also prefer non-charged items. I prefer wands that mages use more like swords. Implements that make them better casters, not like guns where they fire off a preset number of "loaded" spells and then it crumbles to dust. But I have no problem if both types co-exist.