The Cost of Using Magic?

[Plane Sailing]

As an idea it would almost certainly be more acceptable to give people a bonus if they achieved something without magic - people like bonuses rather than penalties.

However, the underlying problem is this - do you penalise all magic users (effectively bringing back differential xp charts for them by e back door), or do you penalise the martial classes for using magic items (which are THE D&D way for allowing martial classes to keep up in adventuring capabilities with the magical classes)?

For those reasons I thnk the idea is a non-starter, and so I'm out.

(do you like my sneaky dragons den reference?)

 

[Minigiant]

What you're describing falls under the topic of research and kill, which is a different D&D trope. If you're familiar with the creature, or the PCs do their homework, you know not to use those methods when confronting the creature. It's the same as researching the dragon you're hunting, so you don't bring a dozen fireballs to fight an ancient red.

Those elements are there to add versimilitude first and foremost. They're not typically there to balance an encounter against broken magic. Trolls can be put down using a torch or vial of acid, more easily than with a spell. Is there honestly any balance to be found in needing to use lightning bolt instead of fireball against a red dragon? I would say no.

The point is, IMO, that magic has clear and cut rules. Spell X does A when B or C isn't present. But Swords and Roguery always works.

It's not that magic is easier. Magic is different.

Yes, I agree the nonepic magic should has a lot of limits and just not do anything.

You can always hack a zombie to pieces or sneak past it.
But Slay Living never ever ever ever works.

Magic shouldn't be the easy path. Nonmagic isn't the hard way.

Swords and Sorcery are different in method not difficulty.

Fighters win by KO. Rogues win by Time Out. Wizards win by typing into the super move.

Magic shouldn't have a penalty.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Magic shouldn't have a penalty.

I agree.

The proposed method is interesting, and it probably could be balanced, but I don't think it addresses the actual problem.

Under this paradigm the DM still loses if his awesome showdown with the BBEG is ruined by the PCs tossing a few tactical nukes (auto-win spells) at it and saying, "What else ya got?" It's just that now, the PCs also lose out to some extent since they don't get xp. However, unless the PCs' primary goal is xp, that accomplishes very little aside from perhaps annoying the players.

As I said above, I think the best approach would be to tweak each spell to remove any game breaking elements. If there are no more blatantly obvious ways to break the game with magic (such as the old summoning water in an enemy's lungs trick) yet a player is clever enough to find a situationally powerful application for a spell, then good for them I say!


EDIT: Related to this, I could see guidelines for placing a level adjustment on a player who acquires magic items that raise his capabilities significantly beyond his level. While this might affect xp, the more important aspect is that the DM would hopefully be able to gauge what types of challenges are appropriate for this Monte Haul PC. That's something that D&D has typically lacked. That said, I doubt it would be easy to come up with a good system like this.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I have liked this kind of suggestion for rolled ability scores, with the XP adjustments applied in reverse from early D&D versions. That is, give bonus XP for those with low stats in the necessary spots and take away XP for those with high stats. The grounds are that those with the lower stats have to work harder for the same objective.

However, there is a difference between rolled ability scores, which could use such a balancing act, versus abilities gained through play, and presumably available to the whole party. You'd like to be able to use what you have so gained.

However, if you tied the power of magic used to power of ability scores, the above would accomplish much of the same objectives, in an indirect manner. If you need a 16 Int to cast 6th level spells, but a 16 Int costs you 10% XP, then you have it balanced on each end.

It wouldn't take much extension from that model to say (as with the early dual-classing rules), that abilities you don't use, don't count. If you can go through the whole adventure and never use 6th level spells, or use your 16 int for a skill and so on, then you don't take the penalty. This would be a character deliberately holding back to test themselves. Most people wouldn't bother for the 10% XP difference, but it might encourage people to hold back early to see how things went, then pull out the stops under pressure.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

(This response is completely independent of the last one.)

It would be cleaner, I think, if you want to do something like this, to charge signifcantly extra XP for learning the "wahoo" abilities or attuning to a "wahoo" item. Make it pretty steep. But then once you get it, you can use it however you want. This cost can be flavered and constrained any number of ways to keep it under wraps.

In the case of items, perhaps you can only so attune to so many powerful items, but you can carry as many lesser ones as you want. Then when you find something nicer, you are ought the previous attunement cost when you replace it. (No discounts, either.)

With Vancian spells, make it so that the caster cannot use something else in that slot without losing the attunement. Like artifacts, such powerful spells have a kind of low sentience, that makes them "jealous". (Or you can go with the Rincewind model here, and that powerful spell stuck in his head that isn't ready to come out yet, albeit not nearly magically incapacitating.)

Essentiallly, if you get the costs right, then such magic becomes an investment you make now to pay off for the next several levels. Eventually, you gain enough power where this old thing is still handy, but not completely dominant on the threats you now face. So eventually you want to replace it with something better--or in the case of spell slots, maybe drop it to free up for more variety while you attune to something more powerful.

 

[howandwhy99]

The default magic cost has been magic as a limited resource, no? Even permanent magic items could be dispelled or disjunctioned or destroyed somehow. There cost was in their lifespan and mortality, of a sorts. Weigh their value off of those factors. It's not too hard to account for constant effects. Resource / ammo tracking is a little tougher, but hardly anathema (this is a game after all).

Use of treasure to gain more treasure as a penalty to one's personal improvement makes a certain kind of sense. "My automaton did it, not me" kind of makes sense for not gaining XP, but I would say it has to do with the type of XP instead. Learning how to successfully program an automaton was the challenge in this case, not what it did.

 

[Tallifer]

I like your idea, and I am sure that this way of thinking influenced the experience point tables for AD&D. I know however that it will never exist again in modern-day D&D.

I suggest the opposite tack: a benefit for not using magic, for not dabbling with the powers of darkness or the dangerous gifts of the gods. In literature, magical power always involves a price for the soul; and likewise the holier the man and the more in touch with the gods, the less sane and less in touch with mortals.

I suggest that characters which do not use magic have better defenses versus magical effects as they increase in level. This would represent their mind and soul toughening through their experiencing magical effects while they themselves did not open their minds or bodies to its corruption or otherworldliness.

A character which uses magic would still resist magic better than an ordinary mortal or a very low level character, but not as well as a great heroic Fighter or Barbarian or cunning Thief.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm confused by this suggestion. How is using a resource that the game puts at your disposal a crutch? Not a fan as a base concept in the game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I believe magic items shuld be factored into the equation what a challenging encounter is... so this idea is not that bad.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm confused by this suggestion. How is using a resource that the game puts at your disposal a crutch? Not a fan as a base concept in the game.

I can understand the sentiment, not everyone agrees with it.

It's kind of like saying if you use a calculator all the time, you won't be such a whiz at math as someone who does it all in their head.

<EDIT:>
In the game, it might work something like this:

The characters are faced with an underground chasm they need to get across. The chasm is clearly too wide to jump across by normal means. This is considered an "Average" challenge that is designed to net each character 300 XP when crossed.

The wizard casts fly and sails across easily. However, his XP is reduced by 300 XP for using the fly spell to circumnavigate the challenge. Basically, no challenge, no XP.

The monk takes several steps back and uses leap of the clouds to jump across. The monk gains a huge bonus to his jump skill, making it feasible to get across - as long as he rolls a 5+ on d20. However, the XP he gains is reduced by 150 for using the leap of the clouds ability.

The fighter moves forward, swinging a grappling hook with rope attached and secures the hook on the opposite side with a lucky throw. After shimmying across using a climb check with an equipment bonus, he gains the standard 300 XP.

Lastly, the rogue scales the side wall of the cavern and clambers up to the ceiling, where he makes his way across with his climb skill. Because he used the climb skill without the assistance of gear or magic, he gains a 100 XP bonus.