Too much magic in DnD - lets do something about it !

[Henry@home]

I think that's a very good point, and one possibly missed by people who advocate low-magic settings. Fantasy roleplaying can be thought of as a way for the participants to recreate the hero's journey, as described by Joseph Campbell (among others).
*SNIP*

Hong, did you realize you just made KenjiB's argument for him? Just an observation.

You derided his argument about D&D getting away from its roots, but then turned right around and beautifully used a Joseph Campbell analogy followed by examples from classic mythology to connect to the other readers in this thread the point you were trying to make.

I'm not deriding you or your position in this post - I agree with it - but it is a stunning observation to me.

Low magic games have a strong appeal, because it fits the mold of classic literature better; however, it limits the choices of players to play the pivotal roles in most fantasy literature. Where would Arthur be without Merlin? Jason without Circe? However, the player should have a choice to play the stock from which those pivotal roles descended.

I believe that just by eliminating the schools of Evocation and Necromancy you can effect a lot of change in your game world by the one act. Imagine a D&D world where fireballs don't exist, the most powerful direct attack spells are fire arrow and burning hands, and the dead cannot be raised. The entire picture changes dramatically, and percious little game balance is sacrificed.

Any thoughts on this?


P.S. - As per Corinth's excellent suggestion, "Low magic" to me is a setting where 5th level magics and higher are so rare that PC's might come upon them once in a campaign, and a magic weapon is never nameless nor without consequence for use.

 

[Geoff Watson]

You didn't answer the question. The question was, "In a typical 1st-level dungeon crawl, which spell would you use more often, Bestow Curse or Magic Missile?" If Bestow Curse is so powerful that it must stay at 4th level, and Magic Missile is so weak that it belongs at 1st level -- for game balance, in a standard dungeon-crawling campaign -- then naturally spellcasters would choose Bestow Curse over Magic Missile if they were both offered up as 1st-level spells. Right?

But I don't think that's the case. In a typical campaign, Bestow Curse is less "powerful" than Magic Missile or Sleep. So is Polymorph Other, at least when used "destructively" (e.g. to turn someone into a toad).

Bestow Curse.
At first level, Magic Missile is quite poor. A light crossbow is better in most cases.

Geoff.

 

[kenjib]

(One of) the problems with the approach you're suggesting is that it removes any point of differentiation between arcane and divine spellcasters.

I think that's a good thing. In most pre-D&D fantasy literature there is no distinction between divine and non-divine magic. Evil witch priests and evil sorcerors, for example, are similar in most manifested aspects - the differences are mostly just a matter of ethos. I think that breaking down this, in my opinion artificial, barrier could be good for a low magic setting.

It's a flavor thing I suppose. One might want this distinction but I don't think that it's necessary. What I think would be best was a system that treated them similarly but also allows you to differentiate them if you so choose. Choice is a good thing.

The occult mage class I've talked about seems to follow similar lines to what both Bramadan and d20 Press via Rangerwickett have suggested. There is one basic mage class which is broken down into different traditions, each of which has it's own rules. Exceptionally learned people may uncover the secrets of more than one tradition. Some of these are religious in nature, but some are just pure arcane knowledge and the application thereof. Mechanically there isn't much need to seperate them so strongly. Subrules for each tradition are adequate to cover the differences. A divinely guided tradition, for example, could have extra rules whereby those who break with the tennets of the faith lose power if that's how you want that type of magic to work. However it's also possible to create arcane secrets that are possessed by a mysterious religious cult, but are not mechanically tied to divine favor. This allows a much greater deal of freedom in how you interpret what deities are, whether they really exist, and if so how they relate to their followers.

EDIT: I'll have to check out the OA shaman. Thanks for pointing that one out.

 

[kenjib]

Translate this to RPGs, and what it means is that if you want to emulate myth faithfully, you're essentially relegating spellcasters to the role of supporting cast. Who really wants to spend session after session buffing up the party fighters with blessings and auguries, and then patching them up with cure spells afterwards? There's precious little glory or spotlight time in that. Even if you take into account the casting of hexes and curses in combat, that's still nowhere near as spectacular (or as satisfying) as inflicting 20 points of damage with a greataxe, and cleaving an orcish champion in twain. Characters in myth and legend don't care about spotlight time, but players of RPGs do -- at least, I'm sure most of them do.

You can say what you like about the D&D wizard, but the fact is that it gives the player of the wizard a chance at grabbing some limelight, which IMO is a good thing.

I think that this is a good thing and achieves our goals. By relegating casters to purely facilitator support roles you can achieve all of the following perfectly:

1. Maintain mechanical game balance.
2. Make magic more subtle by having it manifest in less detectable ways.
3. Make players less likely to play magic users because they are less glamorous. As a result of this they are more rare.
4. Ensure that magic can help to guide the story but does not directly solve problems. The mundane sword slinging fighters and quick rogues are indeed the visible heroes of this story, with the mysterious mage pulling strings behind the scenes.

As Henry pointed out, this is perfect and sounds to me like exactly what I'm looking for in this thread. How is this issue a problem within the framework of what I am trying to achieve? I am not trying to have wizards that take the limelight. That's the whole point of low magic.

That said, Corinth has an excellent point that different people have different views on what low magic is. I think mine is pretty clear at this point. I'm not concerned with the tremendous power levels that magic can obtain, I'm concerned with it being highly visible and widely used - a preference for what WaterRabbit refers to as coincidental magic - i.e. call lightning during a violent thunderstorm is great - lightning bolts shooting from someone's hands in an open field with not a cloud in the sky are bad.

I agree that this definition does vary from person to person in this thread. I know that mmadsen has a different definition from mine, which is more tied to traditional literature and myth. I'm really interested in his take on it as well though and would like to see some suggestions that can handle a wide range of different flavors.

 

[mmadsen]

(One of) the problems with the approach you're suggesting is that it removes any point of differentiation between arcane and divine spellcasters.

I'm suggesting lowering the level of subtle spells (and traditional spells from myth and folklore) and increasing the level of flashy spells (and pure D&Disms) to shape the flavor of the game -- potentially with no loss of game balance.

I don't see what this has to do with eliminating the distinction between arcane and divine spellcasters.

That said, I fully endorse eliminating that distinction. As you pointed out, it's a D&Dism. An evil high priest and an evil sorcerer are the same thing.

You'll note that all of the effects you're suggesting, including bestow curse and its lower-power variants (bane, doom, command, etc) are on the cleric spell list. What you're suggesting would basically turn wizards into second-rate clerics; I can't see anyone really wanting to play a wizard in such a game.

Are Wizards second-rate Clerics because Clerics can cast Summon Monster, Magic Weapon, Bull's Strength, etc.?

 

[mmadsen]

I believe that just by eliminating the schools of Evocation and Necromancy you can effect a lot of change in your game world by the one act.

Absolutely.

Imagine a D&D world where fireballs don't exist, the most powerful direct attack spells are fire arrow and burning hands, and the dead cannot be raised. The entire picture changes dramatically, and percious little game balance is sacrificed.

Any thoughts on this?

It's an excellent start, but we're still left with a magic system where your typical low-level Wizard can't curse you, turn you into a frog, or see the future (even a little bit), but he can cast Ray of Frost, Color Spray, Burning Hands, Shocking Grasp, etc.

As per Corinth's excellent suggestion, "Low magic" to me is a setting where 5th level magics and higher are so rare that PC's might come upon them once in a campaign, and a magic weapon is never nameless nor without consequence for use.

Your last comment gets at a point that we've let drift into the backgroung again: magic should have consequences. First, it's hard to explain why magic isn't ubiquitous if spellcasters have no reason to withhold their power. If I can cast N spells per day, what can I do with that power each and every day? Being invisible for "just" a half-hour a day isn't much of a limit. Imagine what you'd do with that in your own life? You could rob a bank a day.

Second, giving magic consequences can make magic work as a plot device, not just a super-attack that's better than a brave warrior's steel. If magic leads you down a dark path (as the Dark Side of The Force does, or The One Ring does), this means drama. If it leads to madness (as in Lovecraft's works), drama -- and an explanation for all the weird labyrinths and enchanted castles our heroes traipse through. If it requires tangible costs -- the blood of innocents, favors performed for demons or benign spirits, magical components that require a quest -- drama.

Related to this is the idea that spells should lend themselves to quests and adventures, even if the magic itself doesn't have a dire cost. I'd rather see the evil witch turn our heroes to stone, or transform them into toads, or curse them to bleed with every wound they inflict on another than to simply blow them up with a fireball or shoot them to bits with whatever magic missiles are supposed to be. Those curses and transformations naturally lead to further quests to undo the harm. (That's another reason I don't like the blanket Remove Curse spell -- but at least its not flashy.)

 

[LostSoul]

Folks, I perceive a certain amount of confusion borne of vague definitions. Please, define your terms. (Especially "low-magic")

For me, "low magic" means a world where everything doesn't revolve around magic. It also means magic that is mysterious and represents the potential dangers and powers of the subconcious mind and emotions.

One thing to consider about playing a wizard (or magic-using type) in a high- or medium-magic world: you are not special. If everyone in DUNE were a Kwisatz Haderach or everyone in Star Wars a Jedi... how heroic is your 1st level "just got my spellbook" wizard?

 

[hong]

Hong, did you realize you just made KenjiB's argument for him? Just an observation.

Well, I'm not sure what Kenjib's argument is, except some looney-tune handwave about D&D being out of touch with modern culture. That is plain rot -- I would put money on the hypothesis that more American teens are aware of Diablo than they are of Circe. Trying to turn back the clock where D&D is concerned reminds me of the Men's Rights guys getting up in warpaint and dancing around a campfire holding spears.

The point I've been trying to make all along is that a "low-magic" game, without fireballs and such, is one that probably isn't going to appeal to gamers who like magic. This is fine if you like playing Conan or Lancelot types, but not everyone thinks the same way. It's useless to pretend that magic users will have the same appeal once you've taken away some of their niftiest toys.

Low magic games have a strong appeal, because it fits the mold of classic literature better; however, it limits the choices of players to play the pivotal roles in most fantasy literature. Where would Arthur be without Merlin? Jason without Circe? However, the player should have a choice to play the stock from which those pivotal roles descended.

Personally, if I wanted to play a wizard (or sorcerer), I would be modelling my character on someone like Gandalf, who stared down a balrog; or Raistlin, who challenged the gods; or Dr Strange, who fights vast, nonhuman foes. Super, cinematic magic, in other words. It would be rather insulting if the only options offered to me came down to playing a supporting cast member. If all these guys want is a witchdoctor to buff them up and mind the castle, that's a henchman's job.

And yes, I'm aware that Raistlin derives from D&D; regardless, he's a genuine part of popular culture today (as far as modern fantasy is concerned). 25 years is long enough for D&D to have put down roots of its own. You can whinge as much as you like about how D&D has corrupted the masses, but there it is.

I believe that just by eliminating the schools of Evocation and Necromancy you can effect a lot of change in your game world by the one act. Imagine a D&D world where fireballs don't exist, the most powerful direct attack spells are fire arrow and burning hands, and the dead cannot be raised. The entire picture changes dramatically, and percious little game balance is sacrificed.

Any thoughts on this?

As I've said before -- no-one would want to play a wizard. This is just a consequence of taking away some of the wizard's coolest toys, and negating one of the major ways by which they can grab the limelight. Be honest and dump the class; just use the cleric, druid or shaman. And given that despite WOTC's best efforts to make the cleric more appealing, not many people still like playing them (as far as I know), you might as well dump that too.

IIRC there's a game out there that explicitly gives PCs their own retinue of followers to do this sort of stuff -- Pendragon, I think. So there's a precedent, if you need it.

 

[hong]

One thing to consider about playing a wizard (or magic-using type) in a high- or medium-magic world: you are not special. If everyone in DUNE were a Kwisatz Haderach or everyone in Star Wars a Jedi... how heroic is your 1st level "just got my spellbook" wizard?

Exactly as heroic as a 1st level fighter. PCs are special by dint of the simple fact that they're PCs.

 

[hong]

Are Wizards second-rate Clerics because Clerics can cast Summon Monster, Magic Weapon, Bull's Strength, etc.?

If they can't do anything EXCEPT stuff that clerics can do, yes. What exactly do you see wizards doing that clerics can't? If the answer is "nothing", then dump the class, as I've suggested twice already.

And really, if all you have is NPC spellcasting, I'm not sure why you even need to bother tweaking the rules at all. You've removed the major point of contention, which is pesky players trying to hog the limelight. If magic is fully under the control of the DM, you can even make it as "mysterious" as you like without changing any mechanics in the game.