Okay, who here LIKES the magic items and magic system in D&D?

[Numion]

Why does it have to be that way? I'd like to see a 1st level variant wizorcerer go toe to toe with a 1st level fighter.

The 3E balance philosophy isn't about classes being balanced when going "toe to toe" against each other. It's about each class being equally useful in a 4-man adventuring party, working as a team against the opposition (NPCs, monsters, traps, ie generally adventuring).

Now, you're right though that the Sorc / Wizzie at low levels fails even at this goal. But fighter and sorc being able to go toe to toe isn't a measure of their usability in game; it's only a measure of their ability to go toe to toe with each other

 

[Ace]

Why is it that I am annoyed so much by people who play D&D and yet have a hate-on for the Vancian system or for "Magic not being special."

You can read all the books you want and watch all the TV shows and play all the other RPGs you like where magic is mysterious and dangerous and unpredictable and SPECIAL. But I LIKE having magic that is predictable and safe to use. I LIKE having magic items that are bought and sold and yes, not treated as if they are unique and special because you can't get another one. I LIKE having magic that can be understood by humans and magic items that can be created by PCs.

Anyone agree with me?

I do.

I also like low/rare magic.

Variety is the spice of gaming

 

[Turjan]

I really like the Vancian magic system. The original Dying Earth was the first fantasy book I ever read, and the mechanism as described in 'Mazirian the Magician' made perfect sense to me. The system gives you defined spells with defined effects and, for me, has much more flavour than a spell point system. This said, I like the move to a bit more flexibility for my magic users, so I was really excited about the way magic works in AU. It's basically the same system, with some added heightened and weakened effects for spells, plus a lot more flexibility with less confinement than for the sorcerer. This comes pretty near to a perfect fit to my needs.

I don't want to have magic users that use rays like fighters use their swords; this would be boring in my eyes. A wizard should be much more flexible in his possibilities than a fighter; and he should be able to make a big, flashing appearance on the battlefield once in a while. He pays for that with the limitations in numbers of use.

I have a big dislike for the situation regarding magic items in D&D. I hate the magic item creation rules that make the wizard pay the XP price for the benefit of the whole group. I don't like magic items that come in waggon loads. I don't like the way magic items are intrinsic to the balance system of D&D. This is the main reason why d20 has to be re-written for the use in other genres.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Obviously you've never played Shadowrun or Earthdawn. In both those games I've seen people summon spirits that if they fail will kill them. Heck, I've cast spells in those games that even if I succeeded I fully expected to be unconscious and possibly dead.

Well, your game and players are remarkable then. In shadowrun, I've yet to see anyone with the slightest grasp of the magic system create a mage who didn't stand a very good chance of taking no drain whatsoever from even the most demanding of spells. And earthdawn's magic system (let alone the obviously hastily constructed and never-edited summoning rules) was hardly the pillar of sanity. I never did work out quite how they assigned spells to circles - random draw perhaps?

 

[Aristotle]

I like D&D magic for the implied setting, and most of the other published settings out there I believe, but I'm not a fan of any one type of magic over another. I think its fine for magic to be tailored, replaces, or even completely left out if it fits the setting.

If I'm creating my own setting and I need to get through it fast, I'll leave the magic rules go 'as-is'. They are completely playable and well balanced! If I have time, and the setting would benefit from a different style of magic, I'll make up my own magic system or make use of one from another setting.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I don't like the way D&D magic plays. Actually, I hate the way it plays.

Fast?
I don't like waiting for players to reference one of the dozens of spells in basic D&D, or the hundreds, if not thousands, in AD&D or 3.x.

Balanced?
I don't like watching high-level fighters serve as meat shields to hold off enemies until wizards kill them. I don't like watching low-level wizards creeping along with absolutely no value after the first dramatic encounter.

Simple?
I don't like reading a 2-page spell description that boils down to whether the player is a good lawyer or not (wish) or a half-page description to tell me roll xd6, where x is the caster's level, and deal that damage to everything in a 20 ft. radius (fireball).

Aside from the magic items, I have no problem with the feel of D&D magic. In Eberron, where they actually made it make sense (Spelljammer did the same), I actually like its flavor quite a lot.

But it plays, IMO, like hell.

 

[ptolemy18]

I like the Vancian magic system, it works very well for D&D.

But I can't agree with that portrayal of magic items. Potions, scrolls, and even wands, yes. But everything else is too common place. Theres nothing special to it.

I basically agree with DragonLancer. I like the Vancian magic system, but I prefer magic to be just an itty bit rarer than in "standard" 3.0/3.5... not that it's hard for me to make it that way in my own campaign, of course.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

I have a big dislike for the situation regarding magic items in D&D. I hate the magic item creation rules that make the wizard pay the XP price for the benefit of the whole group. I don't like magic items that come in waggon loads. I don't like the way magic items are intrinsic to the balance system of D&D. This is the main reason why d20 has to be re-written for the use in other genres.

I love the XP cost. It never stopped any of my 3.0/3.5 characters from making magic items. (Although it's hard to plan in advance to get the right combinations of spells to make the really complicated items.)

The XP cost is necessary for game balance. Plus, it provides an explanation of why there are old, low-level spellcasters in the world ("Ah, if I hadn't made so many magic items, I might've been 9th level by now..." )

The only thing I might recommend is (as suggested in AFRICAN ADVENTURES: ANCESTRAL VAULT) simplifying the "feats" required to make certain magic items, so it's not counterproductive to buy the rarely-used feats you need to make a Wondrous Item or Staff or Rod or something like that.

Jason

 

[FireLance]

As a DM, I like magic to be fairly predictable and safe to use, and I like the Vancian system because it breaks magic down into individual packets of abilities with well-defined effects. It makes calibrating the challenges much easier, without worrying that a spell fumble will TPK the party.

As a player, I like magic to be fairly predictable and safe to use, and I like the Vancian system because it breaks magic down into individual packets of abilities with well-defined effects. It allows for better tactical thinking and planning.

As a DM, I don't mind magic being rare and special. The PCs and major NPCs just happen to be the ones that encounter own all the rare and special magic. Kind of like how millions and millions of people will never encounter anything out of the ordinary, but Waldo the Wizard from Homeyville has to deal with one supernatural entity every week (plus recurring villians).

As a player, I don't mind magic being rare and special, as long as I can whatever equipment I want anyway.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Obviously you've never played Shadowrun or Earthdawn. In both those games I've seen people summon spirits that if they fail will kill them. Heck, I've cast spells in those games that even if I succeeded I fully expected to be unconscious and possibly dead.

I would be careful about how you use the word "obvious". I'm listed in the Shadowrun thread as a runner.

See SWBaxter's post as well.