D&D 4E Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E

[Igwilly]

That's a lot in the context of our teeny hobby, but it's pretty much nothing outside it.
And, the classic D&D wizard isn't just 'magic from books,' it's Vancian.

I’m not talking about mechanics right now, I’m talking about thematic. The thematic of a scholarly wizard already went beyond the realm of table-top RPGs. Just look at video-games, or fantasy novels (like the last one I read). D&D’s influence went far beyond table-top RPG lands, and D&D was not the only beginning point.
I love the Vancian (Slot) system, though, but that's not the discussion.

OTOH, the idea of supernatural power from ancient, occult /arcane/ knowledge is classic, and was a big deal just a few centuries ago. The hermetic tradition, as revealed by Crowley and other, dosed with Theosophy, science, and pop culture, is where the modern concept of the pointy-hatted, bookish wizard comes from, be it those of Vance's sci-fi classic or Tolkien's high fantasy, or Rowling's post-modern inanity.

Yeah, thank you for agreeing with me ^^

Limitting the bookish wizard in a practical sense is easy: rituals, only.
It was stretching to make it playable in combat that led EGG to the Vancian system..

Hahahahahahahaha well, that’s possible. I do have my doubts about people who want combat-ready wizards, but it would be something similar to the 2e Sha’ir, I guess. However, I was kind of telling him the wizard’s area of magic doesn’t need to be everything.

I discussed that above. Because 'arcane knowledge' isn't really thematically a source of power, and anything might come of knowing obscure things or whatever, the thematic focus granted by the arcane power source is basically nil. The consequence being exactly what happened with the 4e wizard, it 'ate' many other classes, thematically expanding into their roles and thematic space. Thus you got wizards virtually replacing sorcerers, invokers, etc and expanding to fill many areas like necromancy, illusion, summoning, etc with one 'uber' class. Notice that some other classes actually 'fled' to other power sources in order to continue to exist in some form (the Elementalist being the prime example).

Other power sources in 4e were much more coherent and thematic. The elemental source, the shadow source, and the primal source, and the most focused being the psionic source (monk aside, which is IMHO psionic in name only). Even the divine source, which could potentially be its own thematic monstrosity, managed to be contained within a limited design space (albeit one might say that the arcane was the vehicle for that confinement).

In my game we have the Spirit, Elemental, Life, Shadow, and Martial power sources. These are fairly abstract, but you can actually say that your character is gaining power from SOMETHING. My warlock is a Spirit source class, he's drawing his power from a pact with some sort of higher/lower being. My sorcerer is Elemental, he's drawing power from the forces of raw creation. Druids are drawing from the power of life, illusionists from shadow, and monks from Martial -the power of your own person. It serves the original purpose, thematically confining each class and giving it a thematic core to draw from. Sorcerers don't cloud their targets minds, call on deals made with spirit beings, heal, or rely heavily on expertise gained through constant physical prowess; they unleash and harness elemental forces to create and destroy.

The system you are using makes sense, but I see absolutely no reason one cannot say, “Knowledge gives you only these effects” or “These effects cannot be gained by any other method beyond X”. Honestly, I’ve always thought that some effects were more “arcane” than others. I mean, some complex effects could be the “arcane” stuff in opposite to simple effects as fireballs and lightning bolts.

Of course, if you are making this system only for yourself, there’s no point in trying to convince you to add anything. However, I’m talking from my hypothetical point of view as a player who will play this game or whatever. The lack of a “bookish” caster would be a negative in my records. It’s not a deal-breaker, but I don’t have those, anyway

Edit: What I’m trying to say to you here is that Arcane Magic doesn’t need to be this huge thing it is in D&D and some other games, encompassing so many effects and having so much versatility. To make power sources smaller or more focused would demand this from the arcane power source. But that doesn’t mean one should exclude arcane study as a power source.

 

[Garthanos]

Limitting the bookish wizard in a practical sense is easy: rituals, only.
It was stretching to make it playable in combat that led EGG to the Vancian system..

There is myth that gives some fairly striking flash bang magic with its Sorcerors and Bards but I really have only found it in Ancient Celtic Era. And arguably even that had a back pin of rituals.. they were also not very locked down genre wise with cyborgs and death ray beams and such (something else in common with D&D).

Although yeah most of the combat magic would probably still be enhancing and animating weaponry or transforming your self in some fashion.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's a lot in the context of our teeny hobby, but it's pretty much nothing outside it.
And, the classic D&D wizard isn't just 'magic from books,' it's Vancian.
OTOH, the idea of supernatural power from ancient, occult /arcane/ knowledge is classic, and was a big deal just a few centuries ago. The hermetic tradition, as revealed by Crowley and other, dosed with Theosophy, science, and pop culture, is where the modern concept of the pointy-hatted, bookish wizard comes from, be it those of Vance's sci-fi classic or Tolkien's high fantasy, or Rowling's post-modern inanity.

First I'd point out that NOTHING in Tolkien hints at arcane wizardry, Gandalf is a Maiar, a spirit-being constructed whole cloth by Ea itself, infused with a kind of life by the 'Secret Flame' and sent down into Varda to carry out Ea's will. While knowledge is certainly useful to Gandalf it isn't the SOURCE of his power by any means.

While Rowling's wizards certainly partake of much book learning and lore, they also have inherent magical prowess, without which one is nothing but a 'muggle'. Nor do they even control the types of magic which they can wield, this appears to be a matter of character and inheritance. At best book learning in this particular world seems to hone one's powers, focus them, and provide one with lore which can direct a character's overall efforts in different directions.

I wouldn't say the traditions of Crowley and Theosophy are those of 'a few centuries ago', they are thoroughly constructs of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Certainly Crowley, etc. drew on material of earlier times and built their systems out of bits and pieces of medieval alchemy, Kabalism, etc. but it is thoroughly their own. Admittedly, post-medieval magical traditions have been infused with a degree of scientific sensibility, so maybe there's some truth to the idea that this made an impression on Vance and others.

Certainly its hard to say that Vance didn't espouse an idea of book learning. However I would note that his tone is very disparaging of that very learning, his wizards seem to primarily rely on ancient artifacts and higher beings for their real power, and they actually have virtually NO understanding of the magic they wield, simply regurgitating ancient spell formulae which they have memorized. It is virtually unknown for a Dying Earth wizard to actually create an original work of magic. They are less book learned than facile at picking through ancient debris and making use of what they find.

Limitting the bookish wizard in a practical sense is easy: rituals, only.
It was stretching to make it playable in combat that led EGG to the Vancian system..

Sure, but that isn't really a workable approach, certainly not in a 4e-based game. I DO think rituals are underrated in general, and I made a wizard once who actually exploited them heavily to some pretty interesting effect, but what would you do in combat? I think you'd at least have to allow for some sort of system of enchanting objects with temporary effects. This might actually work reasonably well though. At each short rest the wizard picks from the effects he's learned about and instantiates a couple of them as usable powers. Instead of A/E/D you'd have maybe some sort of slotted setup, so you could pick a couple of E's, or one D, and you could pretty much always get an A, though if you eschewed it you might pick say a D and an E instead. Utility powers in this kind of system wouldn't need to really exist, you could perhaps just always have a couple of 'instantiated' utilities of whatever sort you want, with the number increasing by levels or something.

Anyway, its a thought...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Edit: What I’m trying to say to you here is that Arcane Magic doesn’t need to be this huge thing it is in D&D and some other games, encompassing so many effects and having so much versatility. To make power sources smaller or more focused would demand this from the arcane power source. But that doesn’t mean one should exclude arcane study as a power source.

Yeah, I don't think I'd say "possessing arcane knowledge is worthless and never does anything for you." That would be extreme. I'd just make it more of a plot-driven thing where learning certain specific facts could be pretty handy, and those might be what unlocks higher levels of power for a character for instance.

In my system the gaining of 'boons' (which is where you'd get access to new powers) is linked entirely to plot/action in game, so something like "you found the Book of Kell's Doom, now you know the secret of opening planar gates, gain the 'Plane Walker' boon, it gives you access to these powers..." is exactly how the game works (You'd also advance a level at that point). Its really amazing how inverting the advancement mechanic like this reshapes all the logic of the game in a deep way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

First I'd point out that NOTHING in Tolkien hints at arcane wizardry, Gandalf is a Maiar, a spirit-being constructed whole cloth by Ea itself, infused with a kind of life by the 'Secret Flame' and sent down into Varda to carry out Ea's will. While knowledge is certainly useful to Gandalf it isn't the SOURCE of his power by any means.

I know that's all explained in the Silmarilion, but in the Hobbit and LotR, he, like, makes fireworks, 'knows hundreds of spells of opening' and provides tons of exposition - he's very knowledge-oriented.

While Rowling's wizards certainly partake of much book learning and lore, they also have inherent magical prowes, without which one is nothing but a 'muggle.'

Sure, though who knows what she might retcon in her answer to the Silmarillion. Seriously, though, the idea of innate power (or talent) is not incompatible with the idea of arcane knowledge as a source of power.

I wouldn't say the traditions of Crowley and Theosophy are those of 'a few centuries ago'

No, but they draw on the hermetic tradition which dates back at least that far. Crowley revealed secrets of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn which purported to have a lineage of centuries, even though they were just a comparatively recent offshoot of the Rosicrucians. That was more the tail-end of people taking hermeticism seriously, though, it was much bigger in prior centuries - back, for the famous instance, when Newton was into it.

Admittedly, post-medieval magical traditions have been infused with a degree of scientific sensibility, so maybe there's some truth to the idea that this made an impression on Vance and others.

of course, our whole pop-culture perception of magic is infused with 19th & early 20th century weirdness. You don't need to have read Sinnett's 'The Occult World' to have been influenced by Theosophy, you just have to have watched Topper or, more recently, Ghost.

Certainly its hard to say that Vance didn't espouse an idea of book learning.

Vancian was a twist on it, though. His magicians mostly didn't /learn/ from their books, they memorized. Very few of them had any real understanding and created new spells, for instance. In that sense, Vance could have been commenting on the state or nature of education, rather like Hesse in The Glass Bead Game.

Sure, but that isn't really a workable approach, certainly not in a 4e-based game. I DO think rituals are underrated in general, and I made a wizard once who actually exploited them heavily to some pretty interesting effect, but what would you do in combat?

What most wizards did in fiction: either vanish into thin air, or fall back on the one magical trick they had that worked in a fight, or pick up a weapon - and generally only one of those per wizard.

I think you'd at least have to allow for some sort of system of enchanting objects with temporary effects. This might actually work reasonably well though.

For 5e I've seriously considered slotless casters - at-will 'cantrips' and ritual casting, only. It'd be closer to the depiction in genre and would hardly be underpowered.

The other part of the idea of the knowledge-wizard is that his specific occult knowledge could provide strategies or preparation to deal with specific threats, making it into more of a 'leader' role class...

 

[Igwilly]

Scholars are an example of this.

I know this is forbidden by the D&D community, but...
In the Final Fantasy series, the Scholar is one of my favorite jobs. His “theme” is certainly “arcane” knowledge.
In its first incarnation (Final Fantasy III on NES), its ability was to “scan” the enemy in search of weaknesses and resistances, as well as their actual HP value. It was a “feels good but bad for your health” class because of its low HP increase, but people used them anyway. Because it was that useful.
In the 3D remakes, the Scholar gained some more toys to play with: items are more potent in its hands, its tomes have magical powers, its ability also functions as a Dispel, and it gained Black and White Magical spells up to 3rd level – although that won’t matter for long.
In subsequent games, the Scholar’s main ability was replaced by the spell “Scan” or “Libra”, so Square-Enix reinvented the class in its further incarnations.
I’m not saying we should do like that, but my point is: one can have a spellcaster in a different way than “Fireball, Magic Missiles, Repeat”.

We could go with “wands as magical devices”, though.

I’m just brainstorming here, but, if one wants to have combat-ready wizards but be more faithful to old folklore and such, we could have wands (and other foci, but one at a time) that act as devices.
It would be similar to old-school wands from AD&D, except:
A. Only Wizards (or perhaps related classes) can use it.
B. It is their main way to contribute at combat (if not the only one).
In that sense, a Wizard would create his wand – with rituals – with one of more ready spells, and then use it until it runs out of charges, so the mage would recharge it or create another one. You can extend the process to rods, staves, canes, etc. (with possibly other casters, too).
I mean, even in the old myths, spellcasters with wands can certainly cast spells in the fast way. The witch can polymorph the prince into a frog in an instant if she has her wand. A Wizard using his staff to launch some effects isn’t out of orbit, either.
It’s a possibility for those who want battle-ready bookish mages, or even a proper Battlemage/Warmage.
Just an idea.

 

[MoutonRustique]

I almost really like your idea of wands : I would have them act much as weapons - this wand allows scorching burst, this wand allows frost spells, etc

The idea being that the wand is a construct that contains a prepared matrix and the wizard supplies power and an initial configuration - in a sense, wands become "pre-constructed rituals" : the "usual" way to cast a flaming bolt requires intense concentration, and about 2.3 hours of chanting and mixing of the required components.

With this principle, you get an in-game explanation why there are wands, and why they are mostly "battle magic" - for stuff you don't need to rush, the expense of creating a shortcut isn't all that worth it. But when facing angry gnolls... it's kinda nice

 

[Tony Vargas]

I almost really like your idea of wands : I would have them act much as weapons - this wand allows scorching burst, this wand allows frost spells, etc

In a couple of 4e campaigns I've blurred the line between implement and modern weapon. For instance, PCs found a cache of 'Thunderfire Rods' that were, well, Rods, casters could use them as such, but which also functioned about like early firearms. You loaded it up with alchemical reagents during a short rest, and when you really needed a ranged attack *boom* you had one. I used pics of really ornate/bizarre wheel-locks.

 

[Garthanos]

I know that's all explained in the Silmarilion, but in the Hobbit and LotR, he, like, makes fireworks, 'knows hundreds of spells of opening' and provides tons of exposition - he's very knowledge-oriented.

in the hobbit he kills goblins with a flash of lightning and throws a acorn based fireball at Wargs too... and there is also burning the the Balrog with "his" fire.

The Dwarves and Rangers (a race more than a class) and some humans spoke some animal languages. The dwarves also cast spells akin to the alarm ritual on their camp sites.

 

[Igwilly]

I almost really like your idea of wands : I would have them act much as weapons - this wand allows scorching burst, this wand allows frost spells, etc

The idea being that the wand is a construct that contains a prepared matrix and the wizard supplies power and an initial configuration - in a sense, wands become "pre-constructed rituals" : the "usual" way to cast a flaming bolt requires intense concentration, and about 2.3 hours of chanting and mixing of the required components.

With this principle, you get an in-game explanation why there are wands, and why they are mostly "battle magic" - for stuff you don't need to rush, the expense of creating a shortcut isn't all that worth it. But when facing angry gnolls... it's kinda nice

Of course, that’s good, too. I’m here to spark ideas, hahaha.
I also am reading a lot of AD&D 2e – plan to play it soon – so this explains the reference.
However, I thought about a charge-based system because that would require the Wizard to periodically take a time and recharge his/her wand. Of course, the number of charges, and how you recharge wands, is specific to the system itself. Wands as weapons can also fulfil the job, though.

in the hobbit he kills goblins with a flash of lightning and throws a acorn based fireball at Wargs too... and there is also burning the the Balrog with "his" fire.

The Dwarves and Rangers (a race more than a class) and some humans spoke some animal languages. The dwarves also cast spells akin to the alarm ritual on their camp sites.

In both myth and the majority of literature, talking to animals (or plants or stones or whatever) seems to be more of a magical skill one can always use instead of a specific spell with limited duration and a little more bureaucracy.
The way D&D traditionally handles this is very weird.