Subtle magic instead of low magic
- Thread starter Ace
- Start date
fuindordm
Adventurer
mmadsen said:
Solution: Healing spells work normally only if the person is at positive HP. If they are at negative HP, they only stabilize the character, heal one point of damage per spell level, and at best bring the character to zero after which they must recover normally.
I seem to remember that the original poster was talking about a medieval/ren-fair type setting. In our own history, people took a very "magical" view of everything around them, religion included. The sacramental host, for example, was thought to have healing powers and there are documented cases of farmers stealing hosts from the church and burying them in their fields to increase their productivity. The blessings of a priest, baptisms, etc. were thought to offer genuine protection against misfortune and sorcery.
Don't even get me started on the mighty powers assigned to sacred relics and the various saints--examples abound even to the present day.
As for arcane ("non-religious") magic, it was of course greatly feared thanks to church propaganda. According to some priests, even the healing powers of herbs were considered unholy, on the theory that the devil must have taught people this knowledge. (This on no other grounds than it was effective, and because it was unexplained it seemed like witchcraft. But it was not a common attitude even in the dark ages.) In the dark ages arcane magic consisted pretty much of the usual schtick: healing, protection, luck, love, and cursing charms in wide variety. Some cultures (e.g. the Norse) attributed a much wider variety of powers to their system of magic. Towards the renaissance, self-proclaimed magicians grew more sophisticated as well and employed more complex symbolic systems (e.g. Tarot, Zodiac, Alchemy, Numerology/Kaballah) to achieve more interesting effects. Non-religious magicians were generally thought to draw on alliances with spirits (demonic or otherwise) in exchange for their powers; some "white magicians" claimed to manipulate the powers of angels in their work.
--Ben
Acytually if I go with subtle magic I will use Kens Grim n Gritty rules and for HP and divide all healing magic by 5.
To make up for the hosing however anyone under a healers care will get the max effect
An average person (not an adventurer though) has 10 Hit points or so.
Under my rules a cure light will heal 1 or 2 points-- actually a light wound
To make up for the hosing however anyone under a healers care will get the max effect
An average person (not an adventurer though) has 10 Hit points or so.
Under my rules a cure light will heal 1 or 2 points-- actually a light wound
LostSoul said:
Thats actually interesting. You could have the familiar take a more vital role to the spellcaster than just a bonus to move silent and the alertness feat. You could have the wizard use the familiar as a sort of focus that shares the burden of spellcasting. You'll see spellcasters take more of an interest in familiars as more than just bonus boosters. They'll look after them like they did in 1e and 2e!
Maybe have the spells cost XP if they don't have their familiar at hand. If the wizard couldn't bond to another familiar for say a year or even 6 months, they'll certaintly take their familiars more seriously!
I like the spells as XP costs. It keeps spellcasting rarer and more precious. You'll darn well climb a mountain if its in the way, rather than just cast Fly and ignore it. Keeps magic more majestic and pronounced when it is used, i think.
I really like this thread, as it directly addresses issues with magic in my campaign world, where there are no wizards, and the setting is low-magic. I realized what I had been striving for was the creative and subtle use of magic, and you all have come up with some great ideas and thoughts. I think a 'sublte-magic' campaign where there were powerful casters, a web of political intrigue and maneuvering, and a certain status attached to "a clean job" would be fun to play. Much like, the idea of if you've drawn your blade, you have lost the battle.
Big spells could be signature spells by their very nature, which means if Merkel the Meanie casts a fireball, everyone knows who did it, and can blame him for any unanticipated consequences, whereas much subtler but no less effective spells that also achieve the same desired goal would pass by un-noticed.
Except, of course, by the PrCs Spell-Tracker and Spell Seeker I am developing.
I could imagine a city-based campaign of rogues and sneaky casters involved in a world of intrigue and complexity...
Big spells could be signature spells by their very nature, which means if Merkel the Meanie casts a fireball, everyone knows who did it, and can blame him for any unanticipated consequences, whereas much subtler but no less effective spells that also achieve the same desired goal would pass by un-noticed.
Except, of course, by the PrCs Spell-Tracker and Spell Seeker I am developing.
I could imagine a city-based campaign of rogues and sneaky casters involved in a world of intrigue and complexity...
Agreed, but the division of magic wasn't on two axes, both Good vs. Evil and Divine vs. Arcane; it was simply Celestial (Good Divine) vs. Infernal (Evil Divine or Evil Arcane).
D&D presents Divine and Arcane magic as following very different mechanical rules -- primarily that Divine casters can wear armor and fight well. I don't see the need for that odd distinction in every campaign setting.
I certainly see why you'd want quasi-Christian priests to have a different spell/miracle list from quasi-Diabolist wizards and soulless fey though.
Similar Threads
