The Problem of Magic

[GSHamster]

Taking a step back from the various arguments about mechanics, it seems to me that all the current debates revolve around a central theme: magic.

At a higher, conceptual level, magic in D&D is very nebulous. There's no sense of its limitations, or of its costs. What can magic do? Pretty much anything. Does magic always work? Depends. What does magic cost? Depends. The only real guideline we have is that more powerful magic is higher level.

Brandon Sanderson has a concept he calls Sanderson's First Law of Magics:

An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.

Now, he's talking about narratives and books, but I think a lot of the logic in that essay applies to games.

D&D's magic, on an overall basis, is much closer to the "soft" magic he describes. No set limitations, no set costs. And it seems to me that we end up with a lot of the same problems when we attempt to use that soft magic to solve problems.

Would a more "hard" magic system, with more rigorous limitations, possibilities, and most especially costs be better for the game? If you've read any of Sanderson's novels, you know the type of magic system I'm talking about. A more definitive answer for what magic can do, and what it can't do, and what it costs.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've done more rules-bound casters in HERO games, and they exist as the default in other RPGs. It can be very, very cool...if the players are on board.

But better? Better for certsin kinds of games, worse for others. So really, just different.

 

[n00bdragon]

If you nerf magic it's NOT MY D&D.

If you don't nerf magic it's Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit.

Take your pick.

 

[rjfTrebor]

the problem is that DnD's magic is rigidly defined. every spell or ritual has a relatively clear mechanical description.

Sanderson's law really does only apply to narrative situations where there obviously can't be any stat blocks that explain things.

 

[Minigiant]

D&D's Magic as a whole is soft. There is a spell for everything.

The Spells themselves should be hard. And the caster should be hard as well.

The problem occurs when the spellcasters themselves become soft because they have many spells to choose from and can cast many of them.

Magic should be able to do everything.
Individual Casters and Spells shouldn't be able to do everything.

 

[Ratskinner]

D&D's Magic as a whole is soft. There is a spell for everything.

The Spells themselves should be hard. And the caster should be hard as well.

The problem occurs when the spellcasters themselves become soft because they have many spells to choose from and can cast many of them.

Magic should be able to do everything.
Individual Casters and Spells shouldn't be able to do everything.

I've thought along similar lines for some time now. In my case, I was thinking of specialist casters, and how in many genre sources a caster is a specialist, mostly because of his spell repetoire. I certainly think this points to the heart of the imbalance.

So, I'm thinking...what if instead of preparing new spells each day, casters had a repetoire of spells they could use "off the cuff" and other spells had to be cast ritually or something? Maybe institute some kind of casting check to see if you keep the mojo or need to re-prepare it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You wouldn't even need to get that hard-core on specialization to get most of the benefits. For example, make swapping out the "prepared" spells take one day per spell per spell level. And maybe have that be when you need the material components, not when you cast, but then enforce them.. So you swap out occasionally for more general, strategic reasons, rather than because you are resting in the dungeon after doing a "recon in force." It's a way of producing mostly specialists without hard-wiring the limits.

My earlier suggestion of going back to Vance, where the spells are in huge tomes, with only a handful of spells per tome, is another variant of the same idea.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Magic should be able to do everything.
Individual Casters and Spells shouldn't be able to do everything.

The way forward is the model of 3.5 Psionics. Anything more stringent would cause an uproar. Anything less stringent would be rules baggage for nought.

For those not familiar with 3.5 Psionics:
* There is a big general pile of "spells" everyone has access to.
* There are N small piles of super good "spells" divided by "schools". You must belong to the that school to access that stuff.

In principle, it does not have to be so strict. Improved Invisibility could be 3rd level to an Illusionist, while 6th level to everyone else. You do need to exercise some control over access through things like spell trigger and spell completion items.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Improved Invisibility could be 3rd level to an Illusionist, while 6th level to everyone else.

There was a fair amount of that prior to 3Ed, which was retained to a certain extent in 3Ed & 3.5Ed.

 

[SKyOdin]

I woulodn't mind scrapping the Wizard entirely in favor of the Beguiler, Warmage, etc. What does having a do-everything caster do for the game, anyways?