Herremann the Wise
First Post
In 3.x, the optimized wizard with its raft of spells and metamagic feats could seriously unbalance a party at higher levels. It needed to be brought into line.
In 4e, there is very little in terms of variety and imagination to get excited about with the newest incarnation of the wizard. A wizard should be more interesting to play than blasting and crowd control. Rituals are interesting but seem disasterously common and lacking in diversity (at least at this point). With MIs in the PHB4E, the game has taken away the mystery and power of magic and turned it into the momentary and mundane. Of all the things that would need addressing in a future edition of D&D this is it!
The following is an email I sent to pdmiller (A fellow DM and player in my gaming group and all-round nice guy - with a razor-sharp intellect).
Spellcasting and the Arcane
In a nutshell, the 3.x wizard is too powerful. With a staggering variety of spells, a raft of metamagic feats and a bucket load of powerful prestige classes, the wizard very quickly outgrows the group at higher levels – consistently. Why then do I seem to seek to make the wizard more powerful by taking away the Vancian restrictions? Funnily enough, it’s because in essence, I think the roles of the sorcerer and the wizard are back to front – the wizard ending up with the best of both worlds. Having greater utility at higher levels (and better use of metamagic feats), makes the wizard much more powerful, than his staid sorcerer colleague. Far better to let the wizard have the utility shtick leaving the raw power to the sorcerer. There is another confused effect at play here and it has to do with the play-style encouraged by each class.
The sorcerer is considered good for the player who does not want to be overly concerned with the management of resources. Combined with a sense of more spell-castings at a particular level, the focus is on more power at the cost of utility – encouraging the player to focus their character’s abilities. The wizard on the other hand despite careful resource management requirements early on, would hit a point in the upper levels where they had more than enough spells to keep up with the sorcerer but instead were gifted with greater utility and greater power. The power-style players would seek the wizard because they would enjoy the careful management of the character’s build and power that such attention rewarded them with, but the “imaginative” style player was burdened with either a sorcerer who could not accomplish the things such a player wished because of a lack of utility, or a wizard who had that utility, but the burden of resource management, and the competition for spell slots that could still deprive them of the outright utility they crave. How about then, you swap the roles around and start tweaking?
The wizard should be geared for the player who wants utility, the ability to be able to come up with something imaginative and clever, without having to worry about whether they can’t do it because it wasn’t chosen. Essentially this player wants the freedom for their imagination to be able to try things. The natural thing here is to throw the Vancian system out for this player, it just complicates and gets in the way of what they can bring to the table. If their character knows a spell, they should be able to cast it. If an opportunity arises for their player to take advantage of, they should be able to take it. Such players get far more satisfaction out of befuddling a lumbering giant than blasting it’s hit points to zero; such should be the design ethos behind the wizard.
The sorcerer on the other hand should be designed with the power-player in mind. Allow the player to squeeze every last advantage out of a combination of actions so that their damage output is increased (even if only by a small margin). The micro-management of the power at their character’s disposal is half the fun for these players. The build of skills and abilities is very much part of this player’s satisfaction. Such players are happy to deal with restrictions, it makes the eventual victory all the more sweeter. I think the careful management of mana (the magical point tally) would suit this style of player very well.
In both cases, the Vancian System goes – although it would be interesting to keep it alive in some form (perhaps more with divine characters), even if it was somehow combined with the above to a lesser degree. However, one of the prime reasons for getting rid of it is the amount of time it takes selecting spells, particularly at higher levels. This is an aspect of the game that I can’t imagine being missed. There is also a third part to the puzzle: the warlock. The warlock has not been discussed as I’m still not as sure where such a character fits in, but I think it’s an important role nevertheless. To be saved for another email I suppose [or in this case, another thread].
Anyway, the question becomes how do you stop the wizard becoming too powerful? What meaningful restrictions can you place on them? How do you rein in their power at higher levels, without squashing them into a box, and limiting them to the basic output of other characters? Wizards should still be special, able to do things others cannot; but there should be an acceptable way to rein them in without completely depriving them of what made them special in 3.x but most certainly not in 4E.
There are ways of doing this I think that fits in with the ethos mentioned above. However, please note that for a wizard, the majority of spells (such as most “utility” spells) are freely able to be cast. You want illumination, or to light a candle or pipe - you can just do it. You want to pull out a seemingly ineffective spell and find some weird circumstantial and momentarily powerful use for it? You can – given the imagination and the circumstance. For some of the more special/powerful effects though, one or more of the following most likely suits as a restriction or barrier.
- The Arcane/Caster Level Check
o This is the classic modifier to make a particular DC. This is meant to represent the difficulty of quickly casting the spell. However, there is no reason why you can’t tweak the effect of making (or not making) this DC. Several ideas:
You can have the straight: make the DC, cast the spell; don’t make the DC, don’t cast the spell. Some spells might just simply be tough to get right.
Some spells might have a DC where if you make it, you get a “special” effect, if you don’t make it, you cast the spell normally. Alternatively, there might be a secondary DC that if not made results in spell failure.
Another option is that if you make the DC, you might be able to cast the spell more quickly, or it might be harder to avoid or resist, or one of the factors mentioned above/below might be alleviated or reversed.
Another option might be to have the DC variable, dependent upon a trigger or some such. For example, imagine a “shield” spell. As a standard action, you cast it ready for use. You then have a floating minor action that delivers the spell when selected by the wizard. A large dragon might swoop from the sky, delivering a mighty blast upon the wizard. The wizard brings up the shield before the attack is made, then the attack is rolled for a final value which becomes the DC for the shield spell. You make the DC, the shield works and the attack is completely blocked, otherwise, start rolling your reflex save.
o A corollary of this is what makes up the modifier:
Is it based purely on “level’? Is this the base amount which is then varied by other factors?
Wizards are considered to have a “base” amount of mana as part of their makeup - which in turn can slowly be used up in an encounter. This might act as a buffer to this check, added on when available.
• As a sidenote here, I was thinking that the “thing” that differentiated a wizard from a sorcerer was how they were able to store mana. The wizard would be able to store a small amount of mana in a personal item such as a staff, or even a wand (and even an orb or other implement I suppose). The sorcerer on the other hand was able to “claim” it from their surroundings, having it ready to be quickly internalised and then transposed into a spell of some sort.
Perhaps a wizard might be highly trained in a specific type of magic and receive a standard bonus to the eventual modifier.
- Casting Duration
o Perhaps the simplest restriction is to alter the casting time for a spell. In combat, spells that take more effort than a standard action are always “risky”.
Please note here by the way how I’m looking at reconfiguring the actions, most importantly separating the move action from the standard action. No more combining move & standard into a full. No relinquishing a standard action so you can do a “double move”. Your move action is for movement only - see the previous email on this facet. You can make a dash and still have a standard action that you do whilst dashing (you might not be able to do it quite as well though).
o The easiest way to do this is to make a caster wait until their next turn to complete the spell a la the 1 round spell duration (except that that title is confusing). If you give the opposition a chance to disrupt the spell, you are making the wizard choose the circumstances of when such a spell is viable, and when it is not.
o The other way to do it is to make the spell much longer to cast, so that it is not reasonable to cast it in combat. I think any spell over 3 rounds duration fits in this category (but make it a 1 minute casting time or longer just to be sure).
o Alternatively, a 2 or 3 round casting time is interesting. Perhaps some big spells would be worthy of such a casting duration. If your wizard can keep concentrating for 3 rounds uninterrupted by his or her opponents, then someone’s going to get hurt and hurt bad when the magic is loosed.
In addition, some spells if interrupted might backfire significantly against the caster (taking damage or worse).
o Another situation here is having a 6, 8, 12, 24 hour casting time for a particular ritual. This limits the number of times it can be cast a day (if such a restriction is needed).
- Casting Fatigue
o One of the more common fantasy ideas is the sheer exhaustion after spellcasting.
For some spells, this might be a guarantee. After casting it, your wizard will be exhausted - and so cast it with caution – the wizard’s going to be a passenger afterwards.
Perhaps some spells deserve a constitution check or fortitude save to be made.
• This could be before the spell is cast (required for the spell to be completed and have effect)
• Or perhaps it is after the spell is cast.
o Alternatively, specific spells might have a specific effect if the check or save is failed - some quite bad as a deterrent (not quite the 1 year aging of haste... although yeah, maybe...)
- Requires Expending Mana
o Mana is one of the few things a wizard has only a certain amount of access to. The small amount saved in their staff provides a hard barrier to what they can cast.
You may have noticed here that at no point have I mentioned spell levels. This is a daring idea but I wish to do away with them. If you can make the DC or make the check, if you have the focus required, and if you have learned the spell (it is in your spellbook), then you can cast it. Do you dare to attempt to cast it? That’s the question. I think there would still be different lists of spells, organised by spell type (offensive, defensive, buffing, utility), the DC to cast, and other effects as mentioned above – but the formalized nature of 1st level/circle, 2nd level etc. would be gone.
o If something costs 6 mana to cast and you only have access to 4, then you cannot cast it.
In addition, if a wizard is bereft of mana, they are going to need to focus on their staff for quite a while to get that mana back. Mana begets mana and so when you run it down to empty (or have it run down by another wizard), you are in some difficulty.
- Requires Special Casting Components
o Focus: this is the case where an upfront cost needs to be made to cast the spell. This could include:
A costly focus in terms of gp (for example a highly expensive 500gp platinum miniature)
• Something else by the way in terms of financial economy, I think the game economy should be dramatically down-sized. The financial barons of the world are far removed from adventurers – their wealth is on a completely different scale to most of the population, even adventurers. Most people would view a 500gp platinum miniature as ridiculously expensive. A successful adventurer (not that there are many of them – except most likely the PCs) might not earn that much more in comparison. A high level warrior would still view acquisitioning a highly expensive exquisitely crafted sword (for 2,000gp let’s say) as the most expensive investment of their lifetime.
• Magic items (as in the big ones) simply cannot be bought and sold, but they can be traded for other magical items or gifted... or of course stolen. No one has the hundreds of thousands (or millions in 4E) of gold pieces for such things. If an adventurer was willing to trade such an item for a lesser price (but still an incredibly expensive 1,000gp or maybe a little more) then I suppose it could be sold – but certainly not purchased for such an amount except under the strangest circumstances. The expectation of buying such magic would be gone, the ability to sell for ridiculously high amounts would also be gone.
• While the minor magical items might fall into several categories:
1. Personalized (such as a wizard’s staff). It needs to be created by the wizard for the wizard – no one else can use it or would want to use it.
2. A wizardly minor item – such things are easily crafted but require a wizard to expend mana to “power them up”. They might cost a bit (100 to 1,000gp) depending upon their function but obviously nowhere near the many thousands of gp worth in previous editions.
3. A general item – such as useable items like potions and scrolls (but most certainly not wands as they were). These vary in price depending upon who is trying to do the selling. The market is wild and varied in this regard where some huckster or mountebank might sell a near-useless potion for the grand price of 100gp whilst the spurned lone witch might brew a very serviceable potion for a handful of silver, a small quest or service or a bizarre ritual component. Scrolls are wizardly things and much is dependent upon the temperament of the wizard (and how rare or seemingly valuable the spell contained is).
The focus might be of a rare or questionable attained material (the hind claw of an ancient dragon, the horn of a unicorn). Obviously such a focus requires the party to have killed such a beast (a difficulty in one way or the other). Such items should only be a “one or two of” on a particular creature – never a “many of”: no dragon scales.
o Material Components:
Such things should never be used for regularly cast spells as in a required component. As you say, that would get very boring very quickly. The thing is, a material component should always be a rare item or one difficult to come by and always in small amounts (no more than three or four of found in one go). Some situations where a material component may be suitable:
• For a highly detailed ritual, it might be required. The ritual is going to take time to cast and is going to be expensive in one way or another – I suppose I’m thinking something along the lines of a resurrection here or miracle/wish.
• For certain spells, a somewhat expensive (as in above 10gp) component, might allow a spell to be cast without having to worry about the above side-effects or checks or expending mana, or it might provide a significant bonus to such checks or saves. The material component is not required but acts as a casting aid.
• For certain spells, a material component provides added or augmented effects for a particular spell.
And so just one other additional thing which I don’t think I have made explicitly clear. A particular spell is exactly that spell. There are no variations for level or ability of the caster (although some spells are obviously much easier for higher ability wizards to cast). The aim is to produce a spell card that has all the information on it with no changes needing to be made. In particular, the range of a spell would be simplified; no more close, medium and long. A simple standard range and long range (line of sight) should most likely suffice for such variables with both of these being an unvaried standard. No more measuring out whether you’re 5 foot off or not – magic is better than that. I’d like it to be obvious for player and DM whether a spell will work or not in terms of range.
A Quick Example
{1} LUCIFUS’S TRANSLUCENT MISSILE
{2} [Force]
{3} Casting Time: Standard
{4} Range: A single visible creature in standard range.
{5} Casting DC: 24[ss];14
{6} Duration: Instantaneous
{7} Saving Throw: None[ss/s]
{8} Casting Fatigue: Fort DC 14[ss]
{9}
Standard Casting
A translucent missile of magical force darts forth from your outstretched palm striking your target unerringly, dealing 1d4+1 points of combat point damage.
Special Casting
As the standard casting but the 1d4+1 damage is applied directly to hit point damage. If the spell is specially cast, then a casting fatigue save needs to be made.
{1} The name of the spell. Most spells are named after their creator/founder. Some spells however are so generic, they do not have a “name” in their title. It would be common for there to be several versions (or magical recipes) for a particular spell. Different caster's may focus on certain things (for example Lucifus, would prefer a higher casting DC that he could easily make to some of the other restrictions) and thus a theme should develop for particular creators. Some spells might still allow for certain effects to be decided upon by the caster (for example turning the "missiles" into "flying firey faeries").
{2} Descriptors. I’m still pondering this but I think this is a useful thing to hold on to.
{3} Casting time is as expected. Of interest though is that verbal and somatic components are gone. It is assumed that every spell has a verbal and somatic component. The Silence spell as a mechanism to foil casting should be replaced with other methods of distracting a caster (rather than just enforcing a blanket fail).
{4} Range and target/effect can usually be compressed into one line – I think. The range for spells should be much simpler than in previous editions. Basically, you can cast the spell and have it have the effect desired. Only certain spells allow a longer range (line of sight) so as to affect that giant standing upon yon mountaintop.
{5} Casting DC has been split in two. If you make the DC 24 then you have specially[ss] cast it (damage is straight to the hit points). If you don’t make the DC 14 though, the spell has failed.
Rangerwickett mentioned psych studies showing that a 30% failure rate is about as much as a standard gamer would tolerate. By having the DC explicitly known, it is now well within the power of the player to understand that trying to cast a certain spell is either automatic or could possibly be very difficult.
{6} Duration instantaneous. I like the simple nature of instantaneous, concentration, encounter, one day, a year and a day or permanent for the spell duration. Getting rid of a variable period of time for a casting seems important.
{7} Saving throw is not needed.
{8} Casting fatigue: there is always a risk that specially casting this spell might leave you fatigued. [I’m still not exactly sure what that condition entails, have to give it some more thought}. One thing to note here is that the casting DC, saving throw and casting fatigue DCs are all at the same level (with the special casting mark being a precise 10 above). I think it important that spells have some level of continuity in this regard – makes them easier to process I think at the table.
{9} If the target has no combat points left, then it will go directly onto hit points any way.
Hmmm... not entirely sure of this example but heh, it’s a start.
Anyway, tell me what you think about the above.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
In 4e, there is very little in terms of variety and imagination to get excited about with the newest incarnation of the wizard. A wizard should be more interesting to play than blasting and crowd control. Rituals are interesting but seem disasterously common and lacking in diversity (at least at this point). With MIs in the PHB4E, the game has taken away the mystery and power of magic and turned it into the momentary and mundane. Of all the things that would need addressing in a future edition of D&D this is it!
The following is an email I sent to pdmiller (A fellow DM and player in my gaming group and all-round nice guy - with a razor-sharp intellect).
Spellcasting and the Arcane
In a nutshell, the 3.x wizard is too powerful. With a staggering variety of spells, a raft of metamagic feats and a bucket load of powerful prestige classes, the wizard very quickly outgrows the group at higher levels – consistently. Why then do I seem to seek to make the wizard more powerful by taking away the Vancian restrictions? Funnily enough, it’s because in essence, I think the roles of the sorcerer and the wizard are back to front – the wizard ending up with the best of both worlds. Having greater utility at higher levels (and better use of metamagic feats), makes the wizard much more powerful, than his staid sorcerer colleague. Far better to let the wizard have the utility shtick leaving the raw power to the sorcerer. There is another confused effect at play here and it has to do with the play-style encouraged by each class.
The sorcerer is considered good for the player who does not want to be overly concerned with the management of resources. Combined with a sense of more spell-castings at a particular level, the focus is on more power at the cost of utility – encouraging the player to focus their character’s abilities. The wizard on the other hand despite careful resource management requirements early on, would hit a point in the upper levels where they had more than enough spells to keep up with the sorcerer but instead were gifted with greater utility and greater power. The power-style players would seek the wizard because they would enjoy the careful management of the character’s build and power that such attention rewarded them with, but the “imaginative” style player was burdened with either a sorcerer who could not accomplish the things such a player wished because of a lack of utility, or a wizard who had that utility, but the burden of resource management, and the competition for spell slots that could still deprive them of the outright utility they crave. How about then, you swap the roles around and start tweaking?
The wizard should be geared for the player who wants utility, the ability to be able to come up with something imaginative and clever, without having to worry about whether they can’t do it because it wasn’t chosen. Essentially this player wants the freedom for their imagination to be able to try things. The natural thing here is to throw the Vancian system out for this player, it just complicates and gets in the way of what they can bring to the table. If their character knows a spell, they should be able to cast it. If an opportunity arises for their player to take advantage of, they should be able to take it. Such players get far more satisfaction out of befuddling a lumbering giant than blasting it’s hit points to zero; such should be the design ethos behind the wizard.
The sorcerer on the other hand should be designed with the power-player in mind. Allow the player to squeeze every last advantage out of a combination of actions so that their damage output is increased (even if only by a small margin). The micro-management of the power at their character’s disposal is half the fun for these players. The build of skills and abilities is very much part of this player’s satisfaction. Such players are happy to deal with restrictions, it makes the eventual victory all the more sweeter. I think the careful management of mana (the magical point tally) would suit this style of player very well.
In both cases, the Vancian System goes – although it would be interesting to keep it alive in some form (perhaps more with divine characters), even if it was somehow combined with the above to a lesser degree. However, one of the prime reasons for getting rid of it is the amount of time it takes selecting spells, particularly at higher levels. This is an aspect of the game that I can’t imagine being missed. There is also a third part to the puzzle: the warlock. The warlock has not been discussed as I’m still not as sure where such a character fits in, but I think it’s an important role nevertheless. To be saved for another email I suppose [or in this case, another thread].
Anyway, the question becomes how do you stop the wizard becoming too powerful? What meaningful restrictions can you place on them? How do you rein in their power at higher levels, without squashing them into a box, and limiting them to the basic output of other characters? Wizards should still be special, able to do things others cannot; but there should be an acceptable way to rein them in without completely depriving them of what made them special in 3.x but most certainly not in 4E.
There are ways of doing this I think that fits in with the ethos mentioned above. However, please note that for a wizard, the majority of spells (such as most “utility” spells) are freely able to be cast. You want illumination, or to light a candle or pipe - you can just do it. You want to pull out a seemingly ineffective spell and find some weird circumstantial and momentarily powerful use for it? You can – given the imagination and the circumstance. For some of the more special/powerful effects though, one or more of the following most likely suits as a restriction or barrier.
- The Arcane/Caster Level Check
o This is the classic modifier to make a particular DC. This is meant to represent the difficulty of quickly casting the spell. However, there is no reason why you can’t tweak the effect of making (or not making) this DC. Several ideas:
You can have the straight: make the DC, cast the spell; don’t make the DC, don’t cast the spell. Some spells might just simply be tough to get right.
Some spells might have a DC where if you make it, you get a “special” effect, if you don’t make it, you cast the spell normally. Alternatively, there might be a secondary DC that if not made results in spell failure.
Another option is that if you make the DC, you might be able to cast the spell more quickly, or it might be harder to avoid or resist, or one of the factors mentioned above/below might be alleviated or reversed.
Another option might be to have the DC variable, dependent upon a trigger or some such. For example, imagine a “shield” spell. As a standard action, you cast it ready for use. You then have a floating minor action that delivers the spell when selected by the wizard. A large dragon might swoop from the sky, delivering a mighty blast upon the wizard. The wizard brings up the shield before the attack is made, then the attack is rolled for a final value which becomes the DC for the shield spell. You make the DC, the shield works and the attack is completely blocked, otherwise, start rolling your reflex save.
o A corollary of this is what makes up the modifier:
Is it based purely on “level’? Is this the base amount which is then varied by other factors?
Wizards are considered to have a “base” amount of mana as part of their makeup - which in turn can slowly be used up in an encounter. This might act as a buffer to this check, added on when available.
• As a sidenote here, I was thinking that the “thing” that differentiated a wizard from a sorcerer was how they were able to store mana. The wizard would be able to store a small amount of mana in a personal item such as a staff, or even a wand (and even an orb or other implement I suppose). The sorcerer on the other hand was able to “claim” it from their surroundings, having it ready to be quickly internalised and then transposed into a spell of some sort.
Perhaps a wizard might be highly trained in a specific type of magic and receive a standard bonus to the eventual modifier.
- Casting Duration
o Perhaps the simplest restriction is to alter the casting time for a spell. In combat, spells that take more effort than a standard action are always “risky”.
Please note here by the way how I’m looking at reconfiguring the actions, most importantly separating the move action from the standard action. No more combining move & standard into a full. No relinquishing a standard action so you can do a “double move”. Your move action is for movement only - see the previous email on this facet. You can make a dash and still have a standard action that you do whilst dashing (you might not be able to do it quite as well though).
o The easiest way to do this is to make a caster wait until their next turn to complete the spell a la the 1 round spell duration (except that that title is confusing). If you give the opposition a chance to disrupt the spell, you are making the wizard choose the circumstances of when such a spell is viable, and when it is not.
o The other way to do it is to make the spell much longer to cast, so that it is not reasonable to cast it in combat. I think any spell over 3 rounds duration fits in this category (but make it a 1 minute casting time or longer just to be sure).
o Alternatively, a 2 or 3 round casting time is interesting. Perhaps some big spells would be worthy of such a casting duration. If your wizard can keep concentrating for 3 rounds uninterrupted by his or her opponents, then someone’s going to get hurt and hurt bad when the magic is loosed.
In addition, some spells if interrupted might backfire significantly against the caster (taking damage or worse).
o Another situation here is having a 6, 8, 12, 24 hour casting time for a particular ritual. This limits the number of times it can be cast a day (if such a restriction is needed).
- Casting Fatigue
o One of the more common fantasy ideas is the sheer exhaustion after spellcasting.
For some spells, this might be a guarantee. After casting it, your wizard will be exhausted - and so cast it with caution – the wizard’s going to be a passenger afterwards.
Perhaps some spells deserve a constitution check or fortitude save to be made.
• This could be before the spell is cast (required for the spell to be completed and have effect)
• Or perhaps it is after the spell is cast.
o Alternatively, specific spells might have a specific effect if the check or save is failed - some quite bad as a deterrent (not quite the 1 year aging of haste... although yeah, maybe...)
- Requires Expending Mana
o Mana is one of the few things a wizard has only a certain amount of access to. The small amount saved in their staff provides a hard barrier to what they can cast.
You may have noticed here that at no point have I mentioned spell levels. This is a daring idea but I wish to do away with them. If you can make the DC or make the check, if you have the focus required, and if you have learned the spell (it is in your spellbook), then you can cast it. Do you dare to attempt to cast it? That’s the question. I think there would still be different lists of spells, organised by spell type (offensive, defensive, buffing, utility), the DC to cast, and other effects as mentioned above – but the formalized nature of 1st level/circle, 2nd level etc. would be gone.
o If something costs 6 mana to cast and you only have access to 4, then you cannot cast it.
In addition, if a wizard is bereft of mana, they are going to need to focus on their staff for quite a while to get that mana back. Mana begets mana and so when you run it down to empty (or have it run down by another wizard), you are in some difficulty.
- Requires Special Casting Components
o Focus: this is the case where an upfront cost needs to be made to cast the spell. This could include:
A costly focus in terms of gp (for example a highly expensive 500gp platinum miniature)
• Something else by the way in terms of financial economy, I think the game economy should be dramatically down-sized. The financial barons of the world are far removed from adventurers – their wealth is on a completely different scale to most of the population, even adventurers. Most people would view a 500gp platinum miniature as ridiculously expensive. A successful adventurer (not that there are many of them – except most likely the PCs) might not earn that much more in comparison. A high level warrior would still view acquisitioning a highly expensive exquisitely crafted sword (for 2,000gp let’s say) as the most expensive investment of their lifetime.
• Magic items (as in the big ones) simply cannot be bought and sold, but they can be traded for other magical items or gifted... or of course stolen. No one has the hundreds of thousands (or millions in 4E) of gold pieces for such things. If an adventurer was willing to trade such an item for a lesser price (but still an incredibly expensive 1,000gp or maybe a little more) then I suppose it could be sold – but certainly not purchased for such an amount except under the strangest circumstances. The expectation of buying such magic would be gone, the ability to sell for ridiculously high amounts would also be gone.
• While the minor magical items might fall into several categories:
1. Personalized (such as a wizard’s staff). It needs to be created by the wizard for the wizard – no one else can use it or would want to use it.
2. A wizardly minor item – such things are easily crafted but require a wizard to expend mana to “power them up”. They might cost a bit (100 to 1,000gp) depending upon their function but obviously nowhere near the many thousands of gp worth in previous editions.
3. A general item – such as useable items like potions and scrolls (but most certainly not wands as they were). These vary in price depending upon who is trying to do the selling. The market is wild and varied in this regard where some huckster or mountebank might sell a near-useless potion for the grand price of 100gp whilst the spurned lone witch might brew a very serviceable potion for a handful of silver, a small quest or service or a bizarre ritual component. Scrolls are wizardly things and much is dependent upon the temperament of the wizard (and how rare or seemingly valuable the spell contained is).
The focus might be of a rare or questionable attained material (the hind claw of an ancient dragon, the horn of a unicorn). Obviously such a focus requires the party to have killed such a beast (a difficulty in one way or the other). Such items should only be a “one or two of” on a particular creature – never a “many of”: no dragon scales.
o Material Components:
Such things should never be used for regularly cast spells as in a required component. As you say, that would get very boring very quickly. The thing is, a material component should always be a rare item or one difficult to come by and always in small amounts (no more than three or four of found in one go). Some situations where a material component may be suitable:
• For a highly detailed ritual, it might be required. The ritual is going to take time to cast and is going to be expensive in one way or another – I suppose I’m thinking something along the lines of a resurrection here or miracle/wish.
• For certain spells, a somewhat expensive (as in above 10gp) component, might allow a spell to be cast without having to worry about the above side-effects or checks or expending mana, or it might provide a significant bonus to such checks or saves. The material component is not required but acts as a casting aid.
• For certain spells, a material component provides added or augmented effects for a particular spell.
And so just one other additional thing which I don’t think I have made explicitly clear. A particular spell is exactly that spell. There are no variations for level or ability of the caster (although some spells are obviously much easier for higher ability wizards to cast). The aim is to produce a spell card that has all the information on it with no changes needing to be made. In particular, the range of a spell would be simplified; no more close, medium and long. A simple standard range and long range (line of sight) should most likely suffice for such variables with both of these being an unvaried standard. No more measuring out whether you’re 5 foot off or not – magic is better than that. I’d like it to be obvious for player and DM whether a spell will work or not in terms of range.
A Quick Example
{1} LUCIFUS’S TRANSLUCENT MISSILE
{2} [Force]
{3} Casting Time: Standard
{4} Range: A single visible creature in standard range.
{5} Casting DC: 24[ss];14
{6} Duration: Instantaneous
{7} Saving Throw: None[ss/s]
{8} Casting Fatigue: Fort DC 14[ss]
{9}
Standard Casting
A translucent missile of magical force darts forth from your outstretched palm striking your target unerringly, dealing 1d4+1 points of combat point damage.
Special Casting
As the standard casting but the 1d4+1 damage is applied directly to hit point damage. If the spell is specially cast, then a casting fatigue save needs to be made.
{1} The name of the spell. Most spells are named after their creator/founder. Some spells however are so generic, they do not have a “name” in their title. It would be common for there to be several versions (or magical recipes) for a particular spell. Different caster's may focus on certain things (for example Lucifus, would prefer a higher casting DC that he could easily make to some of the other restrictions) and thus a theme should develop for particular creators. Some spells might still allow for certain effects to be decided upon by the caster (for example turning the "missiles" into "flying firey faeries").
{2} Descriptors. I’m still pondering this but I think this is a useful thing to hold on to.
{3} Casting time is as expected. Of interest though is that verbal and somatic components are gone. It is assumed that every spell has a verbal and somatic component. The Silence spell as a mechanism to foil casting should be replaced with other methods of distracting a caster (rather than just enforcing a blanket fail).
{4} Range and target/effect can usually be compressed into one line – I think. The range for spells should be much simpler than in previous editions. Basically, you can cast the spell and have it have the effect desired. Only certain spells allow a longer range (line of sight) so as to affect that giant standing upon yon mountaintop.
{5} Casting DC has been split in two. If you make the DC 24 then you have specially[ss] cast it (damage is straight to the hit points). If you don’t make the DC 14 though, the spell has failed.
Rangerwickett mentioned psych studies showing that a 30% failure rate is about as much as a standard gamer would tolerate. By having the DC explicitly known, it is now well within the power of the player to understand that trying to cast a certain spell is either automatic or could possibly be very difficult.
{6} Duration instantaneous. I like the simple nature of instantaneous, concentration, encounter, one day, a year and a day or permanent for the spell duration. Getting rid of a variable period of time for a casting seems important.
{7} Saving throw is not needed.
{8} Casting fatigue: there is always a risk that specially casting this spell might leave you fatigued. [I’m still not exactly sure what that condition entails, have to give it some more thought}. One thing to note here is that the casting DC, saving throw and casting fatigue DCs are all at the same level (with the special casting mark being a precise 10 above). I think it important that spells have some level of continuity in this regard – makes them easier to process I think at the table.
{9} If the target has no combat points left, then it will go directly onto hit points any way.
Hmmm... not entirely sure of this example but heh, it’s a start.
Anyway, tell me what you think about the above.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
.
