The "Low Magic"/"Rare Magic" Conundrum

[The_Gneech]

I was musing on the "Time Stop" spell the other day and it occurred to me that it's the kind of thing you might see Merlin or the evil sorcerer in, say, a Conan story fire off. OTOH, said sorcerer would not be able to fire off magic missiles, acid arrows, and summon a dire weasel to act as his meatshield.

I think this is the main thing that creates cognitive dissonance (for me at least) about magic in out-of-the-box D&D: a powerful wizard is not one who can command a mighty spell or even a handful of mighty spells, so much as one who commands a boatload of piddly little ones. Of course, for gameplay there's a good reason for that, i.e., that giving a PC mage a single powerful spell and nothing else makes for a) a one-trick pony, and b) a massively-unbalanced one at that.

In literature, magic tends to be a plot device rather than just another tool in a character's skill set, and as such it has more "catastrophic" effects when it shows up. In a game, a wizard's magic blast tends to do roughly as much damage as the fighter's attack, whereas in literature the same wizard's magic blast would instantly annihilate (or at least incapacitate) whoever was blasted by it -- because why would the author bother with a blast that didn't? And for that matter, in literature, giving a wizard a plethora of mediocre abilities rather than one big one would be dramatic clutter.

I suspect this cognitive dissonance is why "low-magic" alternative systems, from Conan OGL to Iron Heroes keep popping up; a lot of people are looking for a gaming experience which is closer to the "inspirational sources". The challenge is finding a way to magic "rare and powerful" without making it unplayable for the would-be PC wizard -- and without making wizards unbeatable foes.

And of course, figuring out ways to compensate for the lack of "a buffer item in every slot," but that's another topic.

-The Gneech

 

[Angcuru]

I prefer the idea of putting harsh limits on who can use magic(or its equivalent), but boosting the power of that magic. The best example I can think of is the One Power(Wheel of Time novels), which very few can use, but it's extremely potent. Difficult to implement, but would be very nice if there were balanced mechanics.

 

[gizmo33]

In literature, magic tends to be a plot device rather than just another tool in a character's skill set,

In literature, everything is a plot device.

I know what you mean though, there are plenty of other areas (like a bunch of crossbowmen telling a high level fighter to stop or they'll shoot) where things just don't go like they would in the books. Having played DnD for decades I've got used to it (sort of).

So if I want a Merlin-type character, it's more about how he relates to the other characters than what his spell arsenal looks like.

 

[Technomancer]

It seems like eliminating the evocation school would be a good start to the "powerful but not flashy" we see in most literature.

 

[Ace]

It seems like eliminating the evocation school would be a good start to the "powerful but not flashy" we see in most literature.

It would but D&D is fundamentaly designed around a certain amount of magic buffs at every level --- 900 at l2 5600 at L5 760,000 at L20 etc

Not having these significantly changes game play above about 3rd to 5th level (for the worse IMO)

as an exxample a standard tank fighter L20 32 point buy will have a strength bonus of about +10 (belt, book, level, base) and an AC of 38-40 depending on build

This is balanced roughly against monsters of Cr20 or so

A fighter without those +16 to +20 in AC bonus is a walking target -- combine a strength bonus more likely to be +5 or +6 and you hugely reduced the power at hand -- can you say monster bait ?

making D&D work at low magic requires patches. If the patches cover the needed ground (IMO extra feats, skills and a level based defense) the system works great --

if not it changes for the worse, again YMMV

My personal patches are

Stat bonus alterations (2 @4,8,12,16,20)

raise light shield to +2

raise heavy shield to +3

defense bonus (not vs touch) at 75% of bab (round down unless a fighter)

feats @ 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19

+2 skill points per class

save bonus +1 at 4,,8,12,16,20

This allows me to hand out 1 to 3 items per character without hurting game balance and puts magical back in magic

 

[Remathilis]

D&D vs. Lit

I had a discussion (actually pertaining to d20 Star Wars vs. movies) but the same holds here.

Magic (in whatever form) is usually limited to give the audience a grounding in reality. Of course, exceptions exist, but typically the audience has an "everyman" to relate to and thus make magic "wondrous". We look at the Force through young Luke's eyes (and Han's jaded view) as Obi-Wan performs miracles. Same with Bilbo/Frodo seeing Gandalf through the eyes of someone who doesn't understand the "true" nature of magic.

Which is fine enough for movies, since they have a plot, main character, etc. However, the role-playing paragrim is very different. In an RPG, things are unpredictable. Important characters die due to bad dice rolls. Classes attempt to balance magic with martial prowess so that no one sits around bored during combat or other long tasks. Every character is equally important (or should be) to avoid jealousy and attention hogging.

So by its very nature, you cannot apply "movie/lit" logic to an RPG. Many people have tried, and they have lead to some horrible developments: "DMPCs", "Railroading", etc.

Now, back to topic, its ironic the magic considered the most "traditional" are the ones that grant the DMs the most headaches. Instantaneous travel, communing with dark spirits, scrying on enemies, and altering time and space are all common things magic lets protagonists and antagonists do in lit, but Teleport, Commune, Scry, and Time Stop all give DMs headaches to end. By the same token, blasting foes with magic or raising someone's strength is less common (or typcially not there) but are the easiest abilities for a DM to account for.

D&D tries a balanced approach: allow casters some "fantastical" magic (like teleport) but also some "basic, numerical" magic (like bull's str). However, by trying to do both, they more often annoy everyone. Whether its the simulationist who hate wizards popping in to-and-fro ruining the gritty medieval feel or the novelists how despise wizards flinging bolts of force and despoiling the mood, D&D has manged to tick them both off.

Is there an easy solution? No. Witness the long list of D&D "fixes" or "alternates" that promise a fix to D&Ds all-encompassing magic system (Grim Tales, Iron Heroes, C&C, True d20). However, I think it is worth noting again that D&D, as written, doesn't emulate any Fantasy Genre then the one it spawned; superhero adventurers kicking monster booty and collecting magic trinkets in a pseudo-medieval world. When compared to traditional fantasy, the results are clear; the former makes for good gaming, but poor fiction, the latter great fiction, but poor gaming.

Thats my two coppers.

 

[Grymar]

I prefer the idea of putting harsh limits on who can use magic(or its equivalent), but boosting the power of that magic. The best example I can think of is the One Power(Wheel of Time novels), which very few can use, but it's extremely potent. Difficult to implement, but would be very nice if there were balanced mechanics.

I agree with this, but like you said it didn't work well in the WoT game. When we tried it the two channelers even at second or third level were vastly superior to the other characters.

It works great in a book, but not so much in a game.

 

[GreatLemur]

In literature, everything is a plot device.

I know what you mean though, there are plenty of other areas (like a bunch of crossbowmen telling a high level fighter to stop or they'll shoot) where things just don't go like they would in the books.

Very true. And, seriously, I'm not quite convinced that trying to emulate literature is necessarily the best thing for a game. Different media have different story requirements, you know? What works in a movie doesn't necessarily work in a novel, or a video game, or a comic book.

Since (most) RPGs require player characters' abilities to be well-defined, reasonably balanced, and useful across a wide range of circumstances--and since players generally can't count on circumstances being set up perfectly enough that they'll always just barely escape with their lives (as we see so often in non-interactive fiction)--RPGs most definitely have their own special requirements and limitations which make "classic fantasy novel-style" magic a bad fit.

 

[Umbran]

I was musing on the "Time Stop" spell the other day and it occurred to me that it's the kind of thing you might see Merlin or the evil sorcerer in, say, a Conan story fire off. OTOH, said sorcerer would not be able to fire off magic missiles, acid arrows, and summon a dire weasel to act as his meatshield.

Yes, but is the D&D wizard who uses Time Stop going to be summoning many dire weasels anyway?

I think this is the main thing that creates cognitive dissonance (for me at least) about magic in out-of-the-box D&D: a powerful wizard is not one who can command a mighty spell or even a handful of mighty spells, so much as one who commands a boatload of piddly little ones.

I'm not sure I agree. I think you'll find that the D&D wizard is gettig the most utility out of the middle of his range, with the high-end being tactical necessities in the really tough fights. While what counts as "piddly" is a bit relative, I haven't noticed too many high-level spellcasters getting a whole lot of mileage out of the lower-level spells.

Note, though, what I consider "mileage" - frequent casting of the lower level spell has impact, in a statistical sense. But the little ones don't dramatically turn the course of events.

Basically, I think the casters are getting whole lot more oomph out of their Fireballs than their Obscuring Mists....

 

[Storyteller01]

MGP's chaos magic works well for this. Incredible effects miles across, multiple effects combining for some truely evil consequences, if you're willing to risk the high caster check.


In my opinion (and just my opinion) player characters have a huge fault... their decisions are made by players who exist outside the game, and who usually have a limited concept of what the worlds like. They play for fun. The characters usually aren't having fun.

Example: Give a character unlimited access to the wish spell. The character understands that using the spell will cause dire consequences (the DM messes with the wording). The player... well, most of us know more than a few people who'd keep trying regardless of the consequences. When you can just start over with a new character, it doesn't really matter.

Great and powerful effects just aren't seen that way by the player. Players just don't think the same way as the book characters.