Subtle magic instead of low magic

[Ace]

With all the discussion about Low Magic games going on I thought I'd chime in with an idea I had---

Subtle Magic

Basically I would drop every spell that is blasting oriented and almost every spell that has a long term physical effect on the game world--

Most of the transmutation, evocation and conjuration list would go.

The various summon spells would be altered to spells with long durations and casting times and so on.

Its not Cuthulu "high price" magic but something different.

The bard list plus some cool options basically

There would be no fireball, lightning bolt, wall of iron etc. Mage hand and TK, mending (modified) would be OK but I might drop invisiblity or replace it with "cloud mens mind effect" ---

For spells like flight I would require full concentration to make it work.


Of course I would need a few new spells (force push) and some sort of Defense system to make up for th reduced magic

Spells would be more Hold and Illusions and less Invisblity and Blasting.

My main question is what would I give mages to make up for the lost combat punch?

I was going to allow armor (and maybe shield though its pretty strong) but a mage is pretty weak with so many spells nerfed or banned

My thought would be to use a non spell casting bard, rolling all spell casting classes into one and letting the mages fight with a medium BAB and d6 HP with standard arcane failure


What do you all think?

 

[Morrus]

I've struggled with this for years. I'm not keen at all on standard D&D magic (magic missiles, fireballs etc.). I've always preferred a more low-key, mysterious approach. I've tried countless things (they never work out) in my attempt to do this yet keep the magic-using classes attractive to players.

My other problem is tangentially related. In most fantasy fiction (assuming it's not D&D based) you don't get all different types of magic. I don't like having divine and arcane magic as being two different things. Again, trying to come up with a decent, low-key, mysterious (yet still playable and balanced) unified magic system has always eluded me.

I like the idea of magic that has a common "theory" behind it. By that, I don't mean that it should be easily and scientifically explained, but that there is some single source of magic. Star Wars has The Force, other things use theories like true names, "the will and the way", ki, or whatever.

Maybe some publisher will come up with one.

 

[S'mon]

In D&D there have always been some flashy 'must have' spells that seem more powerful than others of their level. You could try simply increasing the level of these spells, say +4 levels. They include eg magic missile, mage armour, invisibility, improved invisibility, fly, fireball, lightning bolt, teleport for mages and bull's strength plus the resurrection magic for clerics. This would let you keep your PHB - just note that magic missile is now a 5th level spell, raise dead is 9th level, etc (other resurrection magic could be 9th level or simply unavailable). 1st level Wizards and clerics could still be left with a good selection of less flashy spells to choose from - eg 3e's Sleep and Charm Person spells probably aren't too overpowered any more.

 

[LordAO]

What's wrong with "flashy" spells in the first place? Perhaps you don't prefer it, but other people do. How about this? You can play mages the way you want and grant others the same priveledge. If not, then play Mage the Ascension. (definately no flashy magic allowed in that game, pheh)

 

[Morrus]

What's wrong with "flashy" spells in the first place? Perhaps you don't prefer it, but other people do. How about this? You can play mages the way you want and grant others the same priveledge. If not, then play Mage the Ascension. (definately no flashy magic allowed in that game, pheh)

I don't think he's trying to tell you (or anyone else) how to play your game. He's talking about how he likes to play his. It's a perfectly valid discussion.

 

[Mark_Aurel]

What's wrong with "flashy" spells in the first place? Perhaps you don't prefer it, but other people do. How about this? You can play mages the way you want and grant others the same priveledge. If not, then play Mage the Ascension. (definately no flashy magic allowed in that game, pheh)

He can play the game any way he wants, can't he? Just like you. If he wants a different style of game than default D&D, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that; au contraire, it shows some application of taste. If he wants to play that way, and his players agree, good for them.

 

[LordAO]

I realize that he can play anyway he wants, I'm just used to people who see fireballs and such spells (and those who use them) as "crude." Didn't mean to take it out on you guys. Actually I enjoy subtle spells, though I can toss fireballs with the best of them when I have to. It's often more fun and interesting to finesse your way through encounters, though finessing evocations isn't as impossible as it seems.

 

[hong]

though I can toss fireballs with the best of them when I have to.

Indeed, tossing one's balls of fire with subtlety and finesse is a sadly neglected art these days.


Hong "IKYWIM ect, ect" Ooi

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

I am trying a similar approach to my d20 Harn/Cthulhu campaign. Most spells simply produce no visible supernatural effect, despite any mumbo jumbo incantations, arcane gestures or whatnot. So you almost always have a "rational explanation" for any weird goings on. A guy died from your spell? No, it was a heart attack brought on by stress and bad diet. Quite a fun alternative to the core rules, really, if that's what you're looking for.

Were I playing a higher fantasy game, and wanted to produce subtler magic, I would disallow any spell with a visible supernatural effect, except for low-key things like mage hand. Mostly what would be left are mind affecting/compulsion enchantments, divinations, and a few utility spells like expeditious retreat and jump. Attack spells would be limited to things like finger of death, sleep, hold person, etc.

 

[Ace]

I realize that he can play anyway he wants, I'm just used to people who see fireballs and such spells (and those who use them) as "crude." Didn't mean to take it out on you guys. Actually I enjoy subtle spells, though I can toss fireballs with the best of them when I have to. It's often more fun and interesting to finesse your way through encounters, though finessing evocations isn't as impossible as it seems.

I am just experimenting with something for the next campaign, an antidote to my usual approaches of normal magic and magic is everwhere.

As it happens I like blasting spells but for the next game I wanted a more "historical"feel and I believe by changing the available spells and the monster pallet I can acheive that with wrecking the game too much