Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuindordm" data-source="post: 7005402" data-attributes="member: 5435">I think it's totally feasible and an interesting idea.  You're absolutely right that there is a deep asymmetry between the martial and magic classes. This is not necessarily a problem. It brings the advantage of allowing for two very distinct styles of resource management among PCs and hence different game experiences for the players.  However, the idea of a setting where anyone can try to cast a spell is appealing.If I were to try to implement it in D&D, I would pick ONE of the arcane classes as the basis for "how everyday magic works", then perhaps allow one more arcane class to exist for special cases.For example, let's say you pick Wizard. Spells exist as part of natural law, they can't be modified on the fly. Anyone is capable of learning the formulas and gestures, and they don't need to understand what they mean or how they work.  Everyone has one 1st-level spell slot just by virtue of being alive.  Everyone gets to increase spell slots as they go up in level, at the 1/3 rate. So spells are carefully hoarded by those who know them, as in the Dying Earth books--there are probably a couple of dozen that are commonly known, and perhaps cantrips are also traded and learned.  But most of the spells that exist are secrets known only to a few. If the party defeats a wizard, anyone can read their spellbook, and with an appropriate Int check try to learn the spells.  A fighter with an Int of 8 probably won't bother to try.Essentially, you've taken one of the features of the Wizard class (learn any spell encountered) and given it to everyone. Wizards aren't known for improvising spells, so that's not part of the "Laws of Common Magic". So all the advantages a wizard gets are still pretty sweet: fast spell slot progression, guaranteed new spells every level, special abilities, and so on.What's to prevent a wizard from teaching another party member all their spells? There are mundane reasons: niche protection, professional jealousy, why bother if the wizard is there casting the spells anyway? Maybe you feel the need to impose more setting-specific reasons: magic taints your soul, or brings persecution. But in the kind of world you're describing, in a high-level party the wizard should be able to teach everyone in the party how to use the Fly spell, and they can all use their 3rd level spell slot (which the fighter gets at 15th level) to cast it.  It's a consequence of the world-building, and it would be pretty cool in its own way. Another consequence is that while 1st-level spells will be pretty common, anything higher level than that will still be rare because almost no one will have a spell slot that can make it work. And if you want a world where people can modify spells on the fly and/or it runs in families, you could start with the sorcerer as the base class for how magic works.  If you want a world where people have to bargain for power, start with the warlock.A world where people can improvise spells based on a few well-known magical rules is more challenging--you'll probably have to write a subsystem for that, since D&D just doesn't work that way, or use a different RPG.  In D&D, you could write a smaller subsystem that only deals with cantrips and first-level spells first, and see how it works out. For example, after the player describes what they want to do (without mechanics) and which magical laws they are using to create the spell, you assign a DC for their Arcana skill roll based on the laws of sympathy and contagion (e.g., DC 10 for an attack spell if you have a hair from the target's head, DC 15 otherwise...) and apply an appropriate cantrip-level or first-level effect from the spell list depending on how well they roll.Good luck!Ben</blockquote>

Verification