Magic : How streamlined do we want it?

[Cadfan]

As simplified as possible.

I'd do two things. First, I'd reduce the number of spells available to spellcasters. Giving them an at will attack permits this to happen more easily. Instead of carrying 15 different attack spells in the hopes that they can use each one against the idea target, the spellcaster would just have to make use of what he has. Fewer different spells memorized lets casters memorize what they actually DO use.

Second, I'd make it so that duration spells are based on concentration. I'd permit a caster to concentrate on one spell and still act freely and cast other spells. If he wanted to concentrate on a second spell, I'd start requiring die rolls if he wanted to act simultaneously. By reducing the number of active duration spells operating at one time, it reduces the amount of modifiers players have to juggle. And I'd make the duration equal to the time spent concentrating, so there'd be no paperwork on that end.

See what I mean? Joe the Wizard casts Haste. This spell lasts as long as Joe the Wizard concentrates on it. He can freely act while maintaining this spell (might make it use up his swift action or something). If he wants to cast Mass Bull's Strength on his party, he can, but if he wants to maintain both that and Haste he is reduced to a single move action per round. I might let him act beyond that, with Concentration checks.

That's just me brainstorming though.

 

[Villanelle]

Well... I don't know, maybe I'm drawn to your thread because you seem to be actually talking about two things: spell-casting and gender. So I guess if you were really just trying to talk about spell casting then I apologize in advance, but I'm a girl and I like the long descriptions. I'll admit that when I first started playing spell casters, I assumed that there were probably extraneous bits in the spells, but the more time I've spent playing spell casters, the more I've learned that's a bad assumption to make.

I do play in a gaming group with another woman who never ever wants to look things up, and instead of playing spell casters she gravitates towards fighters and barbarians. However, for myself, I spend hours reading through all the new spells when I gain them, I cackle gleefully, and I imagine all the cool ways they could work. I create my own personalized spell books... it's awesome.

So I don't care if spells don't get streamlined. Other stuff getting streamlined will be very cool. But spells, I'm actually fine with as they are.

 

[Gundark]

Well... I don't know, maybe I'm drawn to your thread because you seem to be actually talking about two things: spell-casting and gender.

No comment about Gender was implied

 

[The Human Target]

Very simple and concise.

No more "Melf's Acid Arrow" and "Snilloc's Snowball Swarm."

Just "Ranged Magical Attack" with the acid damage description and "Ranged Magical Attack" with the cold damage description.

Flavor text is not needed in the spells section.

Clarity is.

 

[hong]

Very simple and concise.

No more "Melf's Acid Arrow" and "Snilloc's Snowball Swarm."

Just "Ranged Magical Attack" with the acid damage description and "Ranged Magical Attack" with the cold damage description.

Flavor text is not needed in the spells section.

Clarity is.

The era of the creeping HEROization of D&D is over, mang. What is on us now is the creeping Iron Heroization of D&D.

(Besides, the designers have said that they're aiming for a less textbook-ish, more magazine style of presentation in the rulebooks. So this kind of thing is probably out.)

 

[The Human Target]

The era of the creeping HEROization of D&D is over, mang. What is on us now is the creeping Iron Heroization of D&D.

(Besides, the designers have said that they're aiming for a less textbook-ish, more magazine style of presentation in the rulebooks. So this kind of thing is probably out.)

Well, its a question of what I wanted to see happen and not whats going to happen.

But I see no coloration between magazine style vs textbook style layouts and how complicated the magic system is.

Unless I'm missing something.

 

[Sun Knight]

I like flavor text. :\

 

[Reaper Steve]

Very simple and concise.

No more "Melf's Acid Arrow" and "Snilloc's Snowball Swarm."

Just "Ranged Magical Attack" with the acid damage description and "Ranged Magical Attack" with the cold damage description.

Flavor text is not needed in the spells section.

Clarity is.

I agree for the most part. Most attack spells are just variations of range, AOE, damage, and damage type. We don't need individual spells for that...just a mix-and-match based on level. Someone (forget who) made exactly this for an Iron Heroes add-on, and I thought it was sweet (but forgot to save the link.)

For instance, assume that each level is worth 1d6 of damage, with range 0. But you can trade in damage dice to 'buy' modifiers.

Assume for sake of this discussion that each 5 squares is worth 1d6 and a circular blast is worth 3d6 (bear with me, just making it up as I type.) If so, a 5th level wizard could do 5d6 damage touch, or 4d6 at 5 squares range, or 2d6 circular blast centered on himself or 1d6 blast at 5 square range. Not balanced, I know, but it illustrates the idea.

A balanced appraoch like this would probably get rid of half the spells in one fell swoop, while seriously opening up flexibility.

 

[fuindordm]

Two comments:

First, I think it makes perfect sense that a wizard character should look things up in books during the game. If you don't want to think about what you're doing, play a warlock.

Second, I like my spells quirky and dangerous. One thing I absolutely detested about 3/3.5 was the dumbing down of magic. No reversible spells, no multi-function spells, and all the spells that used to have dangerous consequences were suddenly idiot-proof. Casting Dispel Magic ends all other spells, but changes your Fly spell to Feather Fall--because falling just wouldn't be fair. Bah!

So I say, let the Vancian spells (whatever remains of it, anyway) be creative, flexible, odd, quirky, and dangerous--just as magic should be.

Cheers!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As simplified as possible.

I'd do two things. First, I'd reduce the number of spells available to spellcasters. Giving them an at will attack permits this to happen more easily. Instead of carrying 15 different attack spells in the hopes that they can use each one against the idea target, the spellcaster would just have to make use of what he has. Fewer different spells memorized lets casters memorize what they actually DO use.

Second, I'd make it so that duration spells are based on concentration. I'd permit a caster to concentrate on one spell and still act freely and cast other spells. If he wanted to concentrate on a second spell, I'd start requiring die rolls if he wanted to act simultaneously. By reducing the number of active duration spells operating at one time, it reduces the amount of modifiers players have to juggle. And I'd make the duration equal to the time spent concentrating, so there'd be no paperwork on that end.

See what I mean? Joe the Wizard casts Haste. This spell lasts as long as Joe the Wizard concentrates on it. He can freely act while maintaining this spell (might make it use up his swift action or something). If he wants to cast Mass Bull's Strength on his party, he can, but if he wants to maintain both that and Haste he is reduced to a single move action per round. I might let him act beyond that, with Concentration checks.

That's just me brainstorming though.

I like the idea of limiting the spells you can have active. That's what shadowrun does, too, and I think it can reduce a lot of the accounting nightmare buff spells can cause.