Low magic vs. magic as a plot device

One of the most interesting takes I've seen in changing magic whilst remaining somewhat within the d20 sytem is the Sympathetic Magic system outlined in Atlas Games' "Occult Lore" sourcebook, which seemed somewhat influenced by the Ars Magica system.

This system, to my mind, gave more mystery to magic (since players had to design their own spells), and brought into play several themes that are prevalent in fictional writing:
Characters tend to have a specialty type of magic
They need an arcane connection to a target (and there is no range limit on spells once you have this nor any limit to the duration)
Magic is performed in a ritual (requiring players to come up with significant symbolism in the spells they design)

All this is controlled with what looks like a pretty decent spell point system and, most significantly, magic cannot be cast instantaneously - it takes time to perform the ritual.

I've not actually playtested the system myself (I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has) but I suspect the biggest 'problem' with such a system is that spellcasting characters could not become involved in standard combat in terms of spellcasting. Spells would be a non-combat function causing the spellcasting players to sit around twiddling their thumbs during combat and the other players to be looking on whilst the spellcaster prepared their ritual before or after outside of combat.

Green Ronin's "Witch's Handbook" by Steve Kenson finds a halfway house between the two issues by offering tempting feats to witch characters to achieve some of the flexibility noted above (e.g. the metamagic feat Sympathetic Spell), which allows the character to cast normal magic (though flashier D&D spells are restricted) and also sympathetic magic (at a price)dependent on need. Other options in the book allow for magic to be tied to the phase of the moon, time of the year, the place where the magic is being cast, and other spellcasters taking part in the ritual. Much of this system was based on ideas first presented in Relics & Rituals, which I don't own, but it received high praise when first released.

Another interesting set of ideas comes from Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG. Despite its many faults, the section giving an introduction to how the GM should handle magic in Middle Earth is truly inspiring for creating the feel of a novel in a game's magic system. It deals with how magic mirrors nature, the issues when using magic as a plot device, the impact of magic on those sensitive to it, and the importance of oaths, curses, fate and prophecy in encouraging players and GMs to bring the feel of the novel into the game. Rules are important, of course, but I believe its equally important that all those playing the game work together to create the feel of a novel if that's what you are attempting to do. And outlining the role of magic in the game world before play begins is a great start to achieving that goal.

Hope that helps and is relevant to the original topic.

Simon Collins
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kamosa said:
And as such I have no problem with it. Sounds like a cool idea. Where I start to get my feathers ruffled is when the new system start from the premise that casting magic is a bad thing and if you do it you must immediatly pay a character penalty (HP, XP, or Abilities). That way of making something rare by punishing all that use it is lame.

I don't view "cost" as "punishment." Nobody is punishing me with a fine of $7 for choosing to go see Van Helsing. I chose to pay to see it because, to me, the chance of it being an entertaining movie made it worth the cost.

It's all in how you view it. I would happily play a wizard who could choose to spend HP or XP to cast spells (either to cast beyond the prepared slots or to use in a system with no spell prep). An even better analogy for some things is investment. As the player of a spellcaster (druid), I would jump at the chance to cast unlimited spells for (12.5 gp+.5 XP)*spell level*caster level. In fact, I'd be doing just that through Scribe Scroll had my DM not changed the rules on that feat. Why would I do that? Because "spending" XP to defeat an obstacle that would otherwise not be beaten means that I earn enough XP to overcome the cost. And because having the additional flexibility that Scribe Scroll allows is FUN, well worth spending a few XP.
HP (maybe 1 per spell level subdual damage) or abilities (roll your own save vs. your spell's DC or take 1d4 temporary Str damage) could also be cases where the PC finds it a tactically sound choice to cast a particular spell.

But "cost" is not the same as "punishment," and for damage applied to aspellcaster it's more like "investment." I've heard your opinion from others who view the XP cost of creating items as a "penalty." It isn't - it's an investment, plus a means to ensure that wizards gain levels only by taking risks, not by sitting safely in a tower crafting items for pay.
 

Brother MacLaren said:
I don't view "cost" as "punishment." Nobody is punishing me with a fine of $7 for choosing to go see Van Helsing. I chose to pay to see it because, to me, the chance of it being an entertaining movie made it worth the cost.

It's all in how you view it. I would happily play a wizard who could choose to spend HP or XP to cast spells (either to cast beyond the prepared slots or to use in a system with no spell prep). An even better analogy for some things is investment. As the player of a spellcaster (druid), I would jump at the chance to cast unlimited spells for (12.5 gp+.5 XP)*spell level*caster level. In fact, I'd be doing just that through Scribe Scroll had my DM not changed the rules on that feat. Why would I do that? Because "spending" XP to defeat an obstacle that would otherwise not be beaten means that I earn enough XP to overcome the cost. And because having the additional flexibility that Scribe Scroll allows is FUN, well worth spending a few XP.
HP (maybe 1 per spell level subdual damage) or abilities (roll your own save vs. your spell's DC or take 1d4 temporary Str damage) could also be cases where the PC finds it a tactically sound choice to cast a particular spell.

But "cost" is not the same as "punishment," and for damage applied to aspellcaster it's more like "investment." I've heard your opinion from others who view the XP cost of creating items as a "penalty." It isn't - it's an investment, plus a means to ensure that wizards gain levels only by taking risks, not by sitting safely in a tower crafting items for pay.


But losing XP, HP, or Stats when you cast a spell is more like having the movie theatre take an actual pound of flesh when you went in. If there was a butcher block at the cineplex, you'd be much less likely to go to the movies. Well, at least I would.

When you take XP, you are saying to the player, that unlike facing monsters which makes you stronger, when you cast magic, you've actually gone backwards in you quest to become powerful.

Let me put it another way. If the XP drain is so wonderful, why not institute an XP drain everytime some swings a melee weapon? The are now personally invested in melee by your reasoning. Why not have the fighter take a d6 of fatigue damage everytime they shoot a bow, or move in heavy armor? Using Power attack should surely do some ability damage! Why not have the thief spend XP to pick a lock, or the bard drain charisma to sing a song? We could get into a whole wonderful system of losing your hard earned XP just to achieve obsticles.

Oh wait, that's right, only spell casting deserves that kind of fun.
 

kamosa said:
Let me put it another way. If the XP drain is so wonderful, why not institute an XP drain everytime some swings a melee weapon? The are now personally invested in melee by your reasoning. Why not have the fighter take a d6 of fatigue damage everytime they shoot a bow, or move in heavy armor? Using Power attack should surely do some ability damage! Why not have the thief spend XP to pick a lock, or the bard drain charisma to sing a song? We could get into a whole wonderful system of losing your hard earned XP just to achieve obsticles.

And while you're at it, have fighters reserve slots for their melee attacks, and only allow one or two attacks per day for a level 1 fighter.

It's totally different, face it.
 

kamosa said:
And as such I have no problem with it. Sounds like a cool idea. Where I start to get my feathers ruffled is when the new system start from the premise that casting magic is a bad thing and if you do it you must immediatly pay a character penalty (HP, XP, or Abilities). That way of making something rare by punishing all that use it is lame.
Since none of us play in your game, why in the world would you get your feathers ruffled over that?

If I ask a question (which I did) that is essentially "I like X -- for other folks who like X, how have you implemented it in your games?" why would you feel the need to show up and say "I don't like X, and you shouldn't use X. It's lame." Which you did.

That's just needlessly picking a fight.
 

Joshua Dyal said:
That's just needlessly picking a fight.
Yeah, and we're bigger than you, and we have more friends. Or, JD does, anyway.

What's lame to one is awesomely cool to another. I LOVE Barsoom's magic system because it costs spellcaster's CONSTITUTION. It literally eats people alive. In the final game of the previous season, battling the Tyrant's Shade beneath the streets of Kish, one PC incinerated himself trying to cast a 9th-level spell. Took something like 23 points of Con damage. Foop. Little pile of dust where a PC once stood.

Them's the breaks in Barsoom. It's become a legendary character death. Everyone had a BLAST that night. They had fun.

You don't think you would have fun playing a spellcaster under that system. Well and good. I don't insist that you do.

But to pretend that I and my friends are NOT having fun is ludicrous. Therefore, the system must not be LAME -- unless, I suppose you think I and my friends are stupid. It's just not right for you.

Which is a good thing. We should all be having fun, thinks I. And I am.
 

Slife said:
And while you're at it, have fighters reserve slots for their melee attacks, and only allow one or two attacks per day for a level 1 fighter.

It's totally different, face it.

This more or less nails it. Magic is, in the current system, limited in both flexibility (either prepared spells or spells known) and utilization (spells per day). Why? Because in the absence of limitations, MAGIC IS BETTER THAN MUNDANE OPTIONS. Attacking with True Strike is better than attacking without it. Magic Missile is usually better than shooting a bow. Spider Climb is better than the skill Climb. Detect Thoughts is usually better than Sense Motive. Cure Light Wounds is better than the Heal skill. That's why people bother to play casters.
At higher levels, it is overwhelming. The only way for a non-spellcaster to not be completely helpless against magic-using foes is for him to have a good number of magic items to emulate magical ability (such as fly and see invisible). The PC environment (party system, deliberately facing risks, rarely bailing out of an adventure because the players want to have fun) gives a false sense of balance between magic and mundane by limiting the wizard's best tactics (hide in your tower and scry, use expendable hired muscle, choose the time and place, prepare, stack the odds in your favor, and retreat whenever things start to turn bad). Magic is very powerful, far more so than the ability to swing a sword. That's part of the point of this thread - how can magic be made interesting and flavorful and not "just another tool"? It's more powerful and so warrants a higher cost. It's not reasonable to impose equal costs on mundane actions as kamosa suggests.
Having an XP, HP, ability, or sanity cost is a different way to balance it out - I'm not suggesting having both the current system and a cost-based system, although I like the way that Scribe Scroll allows you to surpass your limits at the cost of GP and XP. Using Scribe Scroll is not a step back in the process of obtaining power - it's an investment, like buying stocks or starting a business. A 5100 XP wizard with a wide assortment of scrolls is much more likely to succeed and survive and get to the next level than a 5200 XP wizard who can't bear the thought of parting with "hard-earned" XP. Nothing ventured, nothing gained - hoard your precious XP and you stand a slightly greater chance of not making it to the next level.
Now, some mundane actions *do* impose ability penalties - barbarian rage, for example, and I'm surprised kamosa didn't think of that. And if when playing a fighter-type I had the option to spend 5 XP for a +1 bonus to hit or damage, I'd certainly use that from time to time. (Currently, the game I'm in uses Luck Points, which are a reward for success that you can then use to enhance your chance of success - just like I'm proposing to use XP.)
 

Brother MacLaren said:
Now, some mundane actions *do* impose ability penalties - barbarian rage, for example, and I'm surprised kamosa didn't think of that. And if when playing a fighter-type I had the option to spend 5 XP for a +1 bonus to hit or damage, I'd certainly use that from time to time. (Currently, the game I'm in uses Luck Points, which are a reward for success that you can then use to enhance your chance of success - just like I'm proposing to use XP.)

I didn't add this to the list because it is a temp imbalance in scores and is restored to normal right after you stop raging. The types of penalties to stats, XP and HP are more permanent in game terms and tend to be treated more as penalties by the system than a barbarian rage. For similar reasons I didn't include charging, which also fades really quickly.


I think you missed my point on that anyway. The point was that what you are saying is "fun" for the magic user would be seen as a real penalty to anyother class. I know the classes are different, no duh. But that doesn't mean that draining XP or HP is any more fun for the caster than it would be for the other classes. You had made the case that XP drains where fun and I was attempting to point out how unfun that would be if extended to other classes.

And the point of all that was just to say what I don't like in different ways of balancing magic. Just my opinion... Must have struck a nerve.

And your right barsoomcore, any game where my character died strictly because I used my class abilities wouldn't be my cup of tea. I prefer to have my characters die at that hands of competent enemies, not in some sort of stat drain suicide. Heck, maybe I would have been real happy, at least I'd get to roll up a different character that wasn't a mage. Going back to the original point, that doesn't map the fiction I've read at all.

I also disagree that magic overpowers swords at high levels. At least in the games I've played in and GM'd the wizards never overpower the fighters at high levels. Most of the high level monsters have incredible magic resistance, really high save numbers and tons of hit points. However, almost nothing withstands a couple rounds of a high level fighter that has closed to base to base contact. There is no save vs taking damage from a sword, but almost every damage spell is greatly reduced by making a save.

Maybe in an arena style death match using only class abilities the wizard beats the fighters, but in everyday games where you face monsters, not eachother, the fighters tend to do more than hold their own. By about 13 or 14 level, they pretty much do the combat part of the adventure while the wizards twiddle their thumbs and wish their spells did more damage and try to not get killed in one round by the BBEG that is designed to challenge the fighter.
 

Joshua Dyal said:
That's just needlessly picking a fight.

You ask me to come back! And I wasn't trying to pick a fight. Brother MacLearn had ask about other systems of balancing magic and we were looking at a couple systems and commenting on them. I though saying what I objected to furthered the discussion. :)
 

what I'm thinking of doing

Brother MacLaren said:
People have put together a number of ideas for making magic either less safe or less reliable or more mysterious. Some are exhaustion-based (which reminds me of low-level Raistlin). Some are not. I didn't think Madsen was that specific on what he meant by "safe and reliable" as to exclude the Midnight model.

Let me ask you - have you ever considered another way to limit magic? That is, the spells-per-day limit (or spell point systems) provide one way. Other checks in the existing system include the need for spell books and components, limited spells known, etc. Have you ever considered using different restraints? Removing some of the existing ones and adding others? Do you favor removing limits altogether? I'm honestly curious.
I am thinking of having Mages make spellcraft rolls, with the following results
Critical--Spell wors 1.5x as well
Success-Spell works as planned
FAil--fail
natural1- some mishap...gm adjud.

Spellcrft cks are 6, 8, 12, 15, 18, 21, 25, 28 &30

For prisets, their healing spells come back daily, but all other spells are on a weekly basis
 

Remove ads

Top