That Magic Feeling

[Oni]

Vancian magic has a very specific feel to it, but how important is that spell slot/fire and forget method to the feel of the game?

What criteria does a magic system need to fulfill to maintain the feel of Dungeons and Dragons? Which elements need to be preserved and which can be changed? Which variants in the past have been successful in maintaining the feel while changing up the base mechanics and which have not?

If you were redesigning magic in D&D what would your basic design principles be? What defines that magic feeling for you?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Vancian magic has a very specific feel to it, but how important is that spell slot/fire and forget method to the feel of the game?

I don't think the vancian system is necessary. However, the spells used in D&D have a certain feel to them which I think is important. Certain staples are crucial to it feeling like D&D. 4E though has started playing around with this. While the intention was good and the end effect balanced (which needed to happen), the 4E magic system as it stands is unsatisfying for me.

What criteria does a magic system need to fulfill to maintain the feel of Dungeons and Dragons?

Difficult to tell. It's a case of suck it and see; although I think having a core relationship with how things were done in previous editions, but tweaked or twisted might be a start.

Which elements need to be preserved and which can be changed?

I think there is fluidity here but core spells such as magic missile, fireball etc. should be important markers for any future edition.

If you were redesigning magic in D&D what would your basic design principles be? What defines that magic feeling for you?

The following is a simplified synopsis of the system I'm creating.
Two core arcane classes:

Wizard: is for the "imaginitive player" who does not like to keep track of resources. They can cast any spell they know at any time, unburdened by whether they have it memorized etc. Other restrictions are used to pick up the slack of the Vancian System:
- Some combat-based spells require a "caster" check to cast effectively which if failed or failed disasterously may have certain effects upon the caster, or alternatively may have further beneficial effects if a particular DC is reached
- Requires the expending of power/mana (something the wizard does not intrinsically have compared to the sorcerer, the wizard relies on their staff/wand or other implements for such energy)
- Casting duration: "rituals" take time to cast but not necessarily coinage (although more powerful spells might have material components or expensive foci)

Spells in this regard are static. They produce a standard amount of damage/power/conjuration. For example, if Jurament's Magic Missile only produces 3d4+3 worth of missiles, you might risk Lucifus's Magic Missile for extra damage (but possible danger if it backfires).
The majority of utility spells can be repeatedly cast without issue except casting duration and/or material components if the "ritual" is special.

Wizards are the masters of magical devices and can use them more effectively than others.

Sorcerer: Is for the resource manager who likes to carefully micro-manage their "power". They draw in mana/power from their surroundings (including possibly other casters). When they become even more powerful, they seek further planar sources for increased power (a similar idea to the "warrens" in Erikson's Malazan series). They then spend this mana/power to produce spell-like effects different in scale and form to the Wizard. I think blending this with the concept (if not function) of the 4E warlock is an interesting one. There is a darkness to sorcerers based upon their link to their power. While they have several combat tricks up their sleeves, they also have very powerful and involved sorceries to produced far-reaching story/adventure-based effects.

However, I think the one thing we learned from 3E is that the game's not much fun for a group when at high level, it is what the wizard does or does not do that determines a group's success.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Vancian magic has a very specific feel to it, but how important is that spell slot/fire and forget method to the feel of the game?

What criteria does a magic system need to fulfill to maintain the feel of Dungeons and Dragons? Which elements need to be preserved and which can be changed? Which variants in the past have been successful in maintaining the feel while changing up the base mechanics and which have not?

If you were redesigning magic in D&D what would your basic design principles be? What defines that magic feeling for you?

Warlock(3E) and Binder(3E) felt plenty magical to me. Warlock in particular was a pretty big part of mainstream 3E consciousness. I think it would be safe to say that the Warlock was the most beloved new(it did exist before, but it was hard to find) class 3E introduced, which is a big reason it got the core treatment for 4E.

Some people might miss Vancian magic, but on the whole, I think D&D fans are more flexible with their perception of magic.

 

[mmadsen]

Vancian magic has a very specific feel to it, but how important is that spell slot/fire and forget method to the feel of the game?

I can't say I was a fan of D&D "Vancian" magic rules even back in the 1E days. Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories are great fun though, and I still enjoy the "Vancian" naming scheme of many of the spells.

What criteria does a magic system need to fulfill to maintain the feel of Dungeons and Dragons?

One of the key elements of old-school magic was that it was less codified, because a lot of the magic in the game world was arbitrary and unknowable. It didn't all come off the spell lists and follow clear-cut item-creation rules. Maybe your magic-user understood his spell list, and you the player understood all the spell lists in the PHB, but the game world had plenty of magic in it that the DM just made up.

 

[Tewligan]

The Vancian system is very important to what I think of as D&D - it's the way the game started out, and that particular aspect of resource management is a big part of the fun and feel to me. 4e (and to a slightly lesser extent, 3e) went way too far in many changes, the magic system included. S'okay, though - people who like that kind of change are happy with this new game, and I can go on playing D&D with my old books!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think there are two major components to the D&D Vancian magic.

1) Resource Management. The spells are a daily resource, and this creates a certain way how you have to manage them. Sure, you can blow them all in one combat, but then you won't have them for the next combat (be it player-initiated or due to a wandering monster).
I think the idea of "long-term" resource management is a good idea, but I feel that focusing all resources of a PC onto this is bad.

The first RPG I played was Shadowrun 3E. Spells were at will, you just had to be careful with how powerful you'd cast them, because this determined your drain. Do too much, and you'd take damage (and suffer penalties) or even drop unconcious (or dead).

2) Spell Uniqueness.
In Shadowrun 3E, spells were very formulaic. The attack spells all followed the same scheme - you set the damage level and difficulty level to resist, and depending on whether the specific spell was area effected, dealt stun damage or had elemental effects, you determined the difficulty to resist the drain and the amount of drain you could take.

Enter D&D - Suddenly there were spells like Magic Missile together with Burning Hands, Melfs Acid Arrow, Fireball, Disintegrate, Bigbys Crushing Hand, Cure Moderate Wounds, Knock, Emotion, Eyebite, Phantasmal Killer, Summon Monster and may more.
Each spell was a mini-rule, and many of them had complex effects and combined damage and effects, which Shadowrun just didn't have. There were a few formulaic spells (Cure spells), and certain things are standardized. But overall, the spells felt very unique.


When I saw the first glimpses of the 4E magic system, I was worried. Not for the resource management. That was a step in the right direction. But the spells - how much of their uniqueness would they lose? Would I get only Magic Missile Level 1 to 30?
One of the first spells I looked at was one of the Bigby's Spell. And I was relieved. The uniqueness and quirkiness was still there. Bigbys Icy Grasp is a spell like I'd expect it from D&D, and that absolutely is not like Shadowrun magic.

Some people might say the whole pattern of "Damage + Effect" is constraining or less interesting. I can only disagree, because Effects can still be all the strange and unique things I love from D&D.

Then, there is an entire different host of spells since 4E (or maybe Unearthed Arcana and its Incantations?) - Rituals. I think this is a long-needed addition. Ritual casting is an important fantasy trope. Shadowrun had some rules for that, but they boiled down to "take many people, and cast the same spell you'd cast if you were there". Not really interesting, in my mind. Maybe something we also need, but Rituals are so much more then that. And now, they are also in D&D.

Now, I can't say I expect everyone to agree, and others might have different feelings of what makes magic in D&D so interesting. And I'd like to hear their views.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I can't say I was a fan of D&D "Vancian" magic rules even back in the 1E days. Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories are great fun though, and I still enjoy the "Vancian" naming scheme of many of the spells.

Yeah, this. I'm not too keen on the actual Vancian-style mechanics of 3.xE and before, but for me, wizardly D&D spells need to be:

a) formulaic (i.e. not freeform built)
b) specialised (no fire spell that can produce flaming rays, explosions and warm you - just have your scorching ray, fireball and so on)
c) Somewhat quirky or odd in name or appearance, at least occasionally.

These things are defining "D&D magic" for me.

Cheers, LT.

 

[justanobody]

Vancian magic has a very specific feel to it, but how important is that spell slot/fire and forget method to the feel of the game?

The Vancian idea needed refining

What criteria does a magic system need to fulfill to maintain the feel of Dungeons and Dragons?

Magic can do anything.

Which elements need to be preserved and which can be changed?

Spellcasters should never be without all functionality, but it doesn't have to be combat functionality. Spellcasters should be the ones doing magic, and not everyone else, or everyone else should just be considered a spellcaster.

Which variants in the past have been successful in maintaining the feel while changing up the base mechanics and which have not?

Vancian worked best.

Powers losing "magic can do anything" doesn't work.

If you were redesigning magic in D&D what would your basic design principles be?

I think that is mostly summed up above.

What defines that magic feeling for you?

Again probably pretty well summed up above.....

Magic can do anything, and is for spellcasters.

Items can also do magic, but the untrained are not likely to perform it without said items that are doing the magic for them.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

If magic can do anything how do you keep the game from becoming all about the spellcasters?

I'm not saying you have to prevent magic from doing anything, I just wonder what you'd do to keep the rest of the game from becoming irrelevant.

 

[mmadsen]

If magic can do anything how do you keep the game from becoming all about the spellcasters?

No one said magic had to be able to do anything for free...