Magic : How streamlined do we want it?

[jasin]

I like flavor text. :\

Of course! Would the hardening (Sor/Wiz 6) be half as much fun if you didn't need to "rub your hands along the length of the object, intoning the spell. A warm red glow emits from your hands, strengthening the object." IYKWIM AITYD.

 

[Jhaelen]

One thing they did in 3.5 was take some of the old 3e spells and split them up into multiple spells. I hope in 4e they go the other way. Give casters less spells at a time, but let the spells be more customizable.

Well, they had a (good) reason for doing that:

The different effects that were part of a single spell-package like 'Emotion' or 'Symbol' didn't have the same power level, so it was difficult to assign a spell level for them (default: put it in the spell level resembling the strongest effect).

It was an attempt to solve balance issues, just like getting rid of the all-powerful 'polymorph' spell-package in favor of countless monomorph spells of the new polymorph school.

 

[Rakin]

I would see your point better if you hadn't substituted "MMO" for "direct damage." Fireball has been around since 1978 or so, long before MMOs.

Bah, but how many "fireballs" do you have in the old D&D days? I was just refering to how most MMO's spells all do the same thing (damage), just with different graphics.

No reason to think any less of any point being made.


Plus I've never used a free-form magic system so I can't really comment on it.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Bah, but how many "fireballs" do you have in the old D&D days? I was just refering to how most MMO's spells all do the same thing (damage), just with different graphics.

The 1e PHB has magic missile, burning hands, fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold, delayed blast fireball, Otiluke's freezing sphere, and meteor swarm... and that's just naming a few. We can add in flame strike, fire seeds, fire storm, produce flame, etc etc. Old skool (A)D&D has LOTS of direct damage effects.

No reason to think any less of any point being made.

Very true, but I guess I just didn't get why you even referred to these spells as "MMO spells." The existence of a number of modular damage dealers has nothing at all to do with MMOs and everything to do with legacy D&D issues.

 

[InkwellIdeas]

Damage: XdY
Energy: (Fire, Cold, Acid, or Electricity), Sonic, Force
Shape: single target, cone radius R, burst radius R
Range: touch, close, medium, long, line of sight
Flavor: add a minor advantage balanced by a minor disadvantage for free.

Heck, it's only 4 variables, it shouldn't be hard to find a function that fits the available data.

I did an article on exactly that in Mongoose's Signs and Portents #10. I'll have to see how much of it I can repost.

 

[Masquerade]

I could not disagree more. Flavorful spell descriptions are a staple of D&D that *must* stay for the game to still be D&D (and are still in 4e, thankfully). There's plenty of room for streamlining the system without going to this extreme.

Usually I am all for slaughtering sacred cows and streamlining the system, but I am absolutely with wedgeski on this one. "Ranged Magical Attack" is perfect for M&M or BESM, but it isn't what I'm looking for in D&D. Long live "Melf's Acid Arrow"!

 

[Just Another User]

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!

What he said. 3e magic is already too prosaic as is now, make it Hero-like means ruining it definetly.

And let's not forget, 4dventure! would have at will, per encounter and per day magic this mean a lot less spell availlable for any wizard. rather than 40 spells in his spell book as now I figure a medium level caster will have, i.e. 6-7 at will powers (some so weak that they wil rarely be used), 5-6 for encounter and maybe 2-4 per day effects, this mean around 15 "spells" in total this mean a lot less spells to look into the book, also At Will pwer will be probably real simple but there is no reason to not make Per Encounter and For Day as much as quirky and dangerous as you like. (I hope)

 

[Just Another User]

I mean at its core, fireball and lightning bolt are exactly the same thing.

In 3rd edition? Yes, but in 2nd and previous editions they are two really different spells to use in really different situations.

 

[fuindordm]

While I strongly favor having quirky spells in the game, there's no reason the direct damage spells couldn't be standardized a bit. After I posted asking WotC to come up with a model for this kind of spell, I sat down and worked one up myself.

The "power" of a direct damage spell is the sum of six variables:
1. MD10 = (Maximum Damage)/10 (X*Y of XdY, assuming the highest possible caster level)
2. EN = Energy type (elemental = 0, sonic or mixed = 0.5, force or unusual = 1)
3. SH = Shape (ray = 0, multiple targets = 0.5, line = 1, cone = 2, burst = 3)
4. RG = Range (touch = 0, close = 0.5, medium = 1, long = 1.5)
5. NOSAVE: (attack roll required = 1, no attack roll required = 2)
6. MISC: add +/- 0.5 for minor advantages/disadvantages.

Note that maximum damage typically ranges from about 30 to 120, so dividing by 10 gives a scale of 3 to 12 which is comparable to spell level.

One could certainly argue about the relative weight given to the other variables; I just fiddled with it until the values for spell power seemed to fall into line. According to the SRD, the most common direct damage spells break down like as follows (any variables with a value of zero are omitted):

level 0: Ray of Frost [MD10=0.3, RG=0.5, NOSAVE=1] power = 1.8
level 1: Burning Hands [MD10=2, SH=2] power = 4
level 1: Shocking Grasp [MD10=3, NOSAVE=1] power = 4
level 1: Magic Missile [MD10=2.5, EN=1, RG=1, SH=0.5, NOSAVE=2] power = 7
level 2: Scorching Ray [MD10=7.2, RG=0.5, SH=0.5, NOSAVE=1] power = 9.2
level 2: Acid Arrow [MD10=4.8, RG=1, NOSAVE=1, MISC=-0.5] power = 6.3
level 3: Fireball [MD10=6, RG=1.5, SH=3] power = 10.5
level 3: Lightning Bolt [MD10=6, SH=1] power = 7
level 4: Ice Storm [MD10=3, RG=1.5, SH=3, NOSAVE=2, MISC=0.5] power = 10
level 5: Cone of Cold [MD10=9, SH=2] power = 11
level 6: Chain Lightning [MD10=9, RG=1.5, SH=2.5] power = 13
level 6: Freezing Sphere [MD10=9, RG=1.5, SH=3, MISC=0.5] power = 14
level 7: DB Fireball [MD10=12, RG=1.5, SH=3, MISC=0.5] power = 17
level 8: Polar Ray [MD10=15, RG=0.5, NOSAVE=1] power = 16.5
level 8: Horrid Wilting [MD10=12, EN=1, RG=1.5] power = 14.5
level 9: Meteor Swarm [MD10=15, RG=1.5, SH=4] power = 20.5

This gives a range from about 2 to about 20, so we might decide that the appropriate power of a spell is equal to (level+1)x2. We actually find that most of the spells are pretty close to this number. Going down the list again, the spells that are generally thought to be weak or strong for their level really stand out.

Ray of Frost: target 2, actual 1.8. A bit weak. Suggestion: up damage to 1d6.
Burning Hands: target 4, actual 4. Perfect!
Shocking Grasp: target 4, actual 4. Perfect!
Magic Missile: target 4, actual 7. Too strong--make it a second-level spell.
Scorching Ray: target 6, actual 9. Also too strong, but it takes more time to get that way. Suggestion: make it a single ray that does only up to 8d6 damage.
Acid Arrow: target 6, actual 6.3. The misc. disadvantage is that damage occurs over time.
Fireball: target 8, actual 10.5. The no-brainer choice for third level, and we see why. Suggestion: at the very least, make the caster worry about AD&D-style backlash.
Lightning Bolt: target 8, actual 7. A bit weak. Maybe make it last one full round?
Ice Storm: target 10, actual 10. Perfect example of a spell with weak damage but excellent tactical advantages.
Cone of Cold: target 12, actual 11. Not bad.
Chain Lightning: target 14, actual 13. Not bad--essentially a 'lightning ball'
Freezing Sphere: target 14, actual 14. Perfect!
DB Fireball: target 16, actual 17. Not bad, it's the delay that kicks it up. Add backlash!
Polar Ray: target 18, actual 16.5. A bit weak mainly due to its short range.
Horrid Wilting: target 18, actual 14.5. Appears a bit weak, but maybe the untyped damage should be given more weight.
Meteor Swarm: target 20, actual 20.5. Perfect!

One last point: the power of a spell cannot be entirely due to damage at any level. The 3e DMG already has some guidlines on limiting damage, but not on how damage should be balanced against the other advantages of a spell.

Enjoy!

 

[Zurai]

In 3rd edition? Yes, but in 2nd and previous editions they are two really different spells to use in really different situations.

Exactly. Hell, Lightning Bolt used to bounce off walls. It was far more of a tactical spell than its present incarnation, though I have to admit the current version requires much less trigonometry to use.