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

[LostSoul]

Re: Re: Make magic magical!

Rather than following consistent rules, I think that magic should be very quirky, ideosyncratic, and obscure in it's workings to make it feel more occult, rare, and mysterious. Maybe I'll post the "occult mage" class I've been working on in the house rules forum.

I totally agree. (I'd love to see the class, by the way.) I think that the effects of magic should be left up to the DM... for the most part.

For example, a 1st level magic-using class might have the spell "Curse". The player casts the spell - the wording of the curse becomes the verbal component - and the DM generally figures out what happens to the victim. (That is, if the curse operates as the player intends.) A Silent "Curse" might be called the "Evil Eye". The intensity of the Curse scales with level.

This is still similar to what we've got though, just with more "mysterious" spells. I think what might work are some kind of meta-game spell mechanics. A spell is cast, and, by some method, either the DM or Player alters the plot line in some way. I'm not sure how this would work; but I think this would be an interesting way to make magic mysterious and strange.

 

[LordMelkor{Talos}]

Well Simon, I don`t follow your conservative aproach, I personally love tweaking the rules!

 

[Umbran]

Personally, I've found that players get really annoyed when effects of their magics become unreliable. And many GMs tend to run afoul if they don't have clear and set guidelines for ajudicating magic. Make the system too GM-subjective, and you have problems keeping the system balanced, because you don't know how the individual GM will run it.

Best example of this is probably the White Wolf game "Mage: The Ascention". Best darned magic system ever, in the right hands. In the wrong hands, it's a horror.

 

[Squire James]

Just a high-magic DM trying to play low-magic DM a bit...

I guess one way to promote a "low magic" campaign would be to beef up the Adept class until it is PC-playable, perhaps altering spells-per-day or giving spells-known limits. Perhaps some alteration of the spell list, but Evocation spells that cause damage should probably be 1 level higher than normal. I suggest filling in the class abilities a bit to make up somewhat for the reduced power... like giving them 4-6 skill points and perhaps a bonus feat every 5 levels from a chosen list, like Wizards.

Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards don't exist. All actual spellcasting is done by Adepts. Adepts can call themselves Adepts, or call themselves one of the other four names. Enterprising DM's might design a slightly different Adept to cover each of the four classes, but they shouldn't be too different. I suggest simply changing the Adept bonus feat list for each variation. Pure adepts should not have many prestige classes, perhaps one for each "traditional" school of magic (all of which should force the adept to specialize and pick forbidden schools).

Bards, Rangers, and Paladins (and prestige classes that use their own spell list) need to lose their spell abilities. Giving a bonus feat (from a class-specific list) at the times where they would normally gain a new spell level (that first 0) seems balanced. In the case of Bards, it would probably make the class more playable!

Use the "exotic components" rules for making magic items, then make sure you use different ingredients each time, even if they're trying to make two +1 longswords. If you don't want the PC's making items at all, simply banning the feats will work. Or perhaps ALL magic items use the "leveled item" and "exotic components" rules. Potions should probably be exempt from these rules, and even buying/selling them doesn't seem too unreasonable. You may even want to free low-level healing potions from the magic item process entirely, and make them Alchemy items.

As for creatures with DR, perhaps you can assign each of them a special material that can harm them anyway... silver, obsidian, ash wood, flint, lapis lazuli, and so on. To be fair, you shouldn't use DR creatures in a surprise situation, unless you're simulating Ravenloft or otherwise intend the PC's to run away (and then you bloody well need to make it possible to run away!). Some monsters, like dragons, are still plenty powerful without DR, so in some cases remove the DR entirely.

 

[Fenes]

I DM/play in rather low-magic campaigns - the PCs are just now, at 9th to 10th level, getting magic weapons, and I don't think I modified the rules much.

I just cut down on treasure and magic items, got rid of magic shops, and used one-shot items like scrolls and potions when needed.

I did not modify spellcasters, but I cut down on spells that would be overpowering in that setting (Haste comes to mind) and I generally nudge spellcaster PCs into a more altruistic role. If the party relies on mage armor, magic weapon, greater magic weapon and other buff spells then the spellcasters have less spells to use to burn down the opposition in droves.

IMHO, it is not magic per se, but the sheer volume of magic items that is the "usual loot" which causes the urge to restrict magic. If every orc has a +1 axe and a couple hundred gold and every guard a few potions and a magical armor you end up with a world where you cannot throw a stone without hitting a magical thing and people rely on magic.

Get rid of the loads of money, and the thousands of magic items littering the world, and you get a world where magic is not dominating.

 

[Codragon]

Consistent Rules for Mysterious Magic?

There is most certainly a place for the walking artillery, fireball slinging sorceror in some worlds. One big advantage of such a system is the fact that such spell effects are easily quanitfyable in game terms. This spell does 1d6 damage per level, that spell adds 10 to AC, etc. But after a while it becomes old hat to me. Sometimes, magic-users seem like fighters using a different kind of weapon.

As I said before, I'd like to see magic be more mystical with subtle, gradual and/or less quatifyable effects. Spells would be primarily be curses, rituals, enchantments, illusions, and gradual body-mind transformation (for better or worse). The spell's effect may be dependent on the phase of the moon or what kind of blood is used as the component.

It seems that it would be a challenge to come up with consistent mechanical rules to adjucate (sp?) these kind of spells. Either that, or they are purely DM spot judgement calls everytime, and you'd better have a REALLY GOOD DM!

Any thoughts/ideas?

PS: I've never played anything by Mongoose or Mage:the Acension, so I can't make comparisons to those.

 

[LostSoul]

Personally, I've found that players get really annoyed when effects of their magics become unreliable. And many GMs tend to run afoul if they don't have clear and set guidelines for ajudicating magic. Make the system too GM-subjective, and you have problems keeping the system balanced, because you don't know how the individual GM will run it.

I think this is real problem with GM supervised effects. But if you gave the Players some method of, with thier spells, effecting the plot line or improving the effect of thier spells, it might work ok.

Maybe the Player says, "I'm going to hex this guy's home. As well, I'm going to use the 'unforseen benefits' clause so that sometime in the future this will have a positive impact on us that we didn't intend."

DM says, "The 'unforseen benefits' has a price of 2 negative points. Are you sure you want to use it?"

Player agrees.

At that point, something strange happens based on a list of things the DM has drawn up. Maybe the spell caught the attention of an otherworldly source. Maybe the spell gave them a new enemy in some way. Who knows. The Players know that something good will happen when they need it most; but they also know 2 bad things have happened, and don't exactly know what those things will be. Playing with dark forces, indeed.

Anyways, that's just off the top of my head and maybe a totally different direction than most are willing to go.

 

[mmadsen]

There's at least one very good reason for not restricting spellcasting to high levels: you cannot do a dungeon crawl without at least a party medic, unless you want to keep running back to town and healing up after each encounter.

But there are clear alternatives to spellcasting for healing. First, if you use a system of higher Defenses in place of higher Hit Points, the characters defenses aren't naturally so ablative. In D&D, you're guaranteed to get hit, but you have many, many hit points, so you're able to go on -- but you need healing. If you have half as many hit points (probably still a lot) but get hit half as often, you won't need to get patched up after every fight; the cannon fodder might not even scratch you.

Further, if you use a Wound/Vitality system (a la Star Wars), Vitality points "heal" very quickly.

Or you can just let mundane Healing rolls heal much faster than they currently do. If the old hermit from the woods can effectively patch you up, you don't need hourly divine intervention.

Finally, just because a spellcaster effectively has an ECL doesn't mean you can't have spellcasters in the party. You don't have to start at first level. Starting spellcasters off at higher level simply admits that a wizard is more powerful than a militiaman.

Having some portable artillery also comes in handy.

There's nothing about a wizard's "artillery" that's qualitatively different from a warrior's "beat down". Where the wizard's necessary is in handling magical challenges. If we let mundane skills identify magic items, etc., then even a low-level Expert can serve in that role.

There's another very good reason for not restricting spellcasting to high levels: many people _like_ playing spellcasters. They like the idea of being able to use magic and create wondrous effects that aren't possible in humdrum reality.

Certainly. They also like playing dark elves. They don't have to be first-level characters though.

 

[mmadsen]

Along with some of the other changes mentioned, I think the Hit Point mechanic might need some work. A Fighter with 100 hit points can jump off a cliff and hit the ground running.

Certainly.

When you realize that a typical soldier in the local militia has 4 hit points (1st-level Warrior, 10 Con) then a minor hero (2nd-level Fighter, 14 Con) already has almost five times as many hit points (19). He's already guaranteed immunity to any one mundane attack. At that point, a strong Defense bonus seems like a much more elegant solution than piling on still more hit points.

But that's another discussion entirely.

 

[Bastoche]

Re: Consistent Rules for Mysterious Magic?

There is most certainly a place for the walking artillery, fireball slinging sorceror in some worlds. One big advantage of such a system is the fact that such spell effects are easily quanitfyable in game terms. This spell does 1d6 damage per level, that spell adds 10 to AC, etc. But after a while it becomes old hat to me. Sometimes, magic-users seem like fighters using a different kind of weapon.

As I said before, I'd like to see magic be more mystical with subtle, gradual and/or less quatifyable effects. Spells would be primarily be curses, rituals, enchantments, illusions, and gradual body-mind transformation (for better or worse). The spell's effect may be dependent on the phase of the moon or what kind of blood is used as the component.

It seems that it would be a challenge to come up with consistent mechanical rules to adjucate (sp?) these kind of spells. Either that, or they are purely DM spot judgement calls everytime, and you'd better have a REALLY GOOD DM!

Any thoughts/ideas?

PS: I've never played anything by Mongoose or Mage:the Acension, so I can't make comparisons to those.

I think this goes more along the lines of how to use the tool (the PHB) to make the campaign you like than how to make the rules.

Fireball says it throws a ball of fire that does 1d6 per caster level. That is very boring.

Saying "I invoke the forces of obscure and occult to summon the heat and inferno of baator to blow my ennemies to pieces" is already a little less boring. And if the player choose to alter the spell in non mechanical way (i.e. the fire is blue/green/red/black/whatever) you get something both original, occult and mystic and balanced. No matter the amount of magic. I played a barbarian that had his rage summoned from nature spirits. What did it do ? From a technical point of view, nothing. Well nothing different then what's in the PHB already. From a role-playing point of view ? Many things ! An eerie glowing shape of the animal spirit that I was imbued with appreared around my body. It looked cool, it looked original occult and different.

And you can do this with any spell/abilities. If the DM alters a spell from a role-playing point of view, the players may ask "What was he casting ? What did he do ?" And the DM would gladly call for a spellcraft check or a knowledge(arcana) check. Without having to create a whole set of new rules with a potential balance problem. Imagine "Zylack's Fireball" instead of plain ole "fireball".

Flavor, is a thing the DM and players are responsible for, not the rule's publisher. Amount of magic, on the other hand can be a rules issue, but shouldn't always be.