Too much magic in DnD - Lets fo something about it 2.

[kenjib]

Hey Bramadan, how about editing a link to the original discussion into the first post? Otherwise we'll get more people jumping in repeating previous sentiments without knowing that it's already been hacked to death than we will otherwise.

Did anyone get a chance to take a look at the occult mage concept I posted? Basically it's just a simple way to modularize spell casting and create different traditions that operate with different principles and spell lists. It makes it easy to still use the current spell casting rules but add in little packages that have new subrules.

You could, for example, create new traditions that requires skill rolls for each spell cast. You could also create new traditions that cause subdual damage, insanity, or attract the attention of dangerous outsiders.

It is just a framework that I think might be useful for us to work within. One advantage is that it provides for a consistent system that we can take advantage of and have all of our different magic ideas remain cross-compatible and still very compatible with the standard D&D/d20 rules. If we were to create several concepts using this system a person could pick and chose which one(s) they like and adapt them to their game world. Someone could, for example, take mmadsen's mythic and mysterious spell caster with a heavily modified spell list and at the same time also use my Byurinese Witch or Nomitic Theurgist (changing the religious details to fit their campaign of course). All three could co-exist and be cross-compatible in the same world, allowing for great flexibility.

What do you guys think? Does it outright suck or is it something to work with? I'd be more than happy to alter the details and refine it to suit our needs and any feedback, change suggestions would be most welcome.

In any case, I think that it might be a good chance for us to start taking all of this theoretical discussion to the table, so to speak, and actually start applying it in such a way that we get nice results.

One thing that I would like to do, perhaps, is to remove the class mechanics from beneath the concept and make it work more simply as a spell list/casting rules modification template. As it is currently, I've got some rules built in regarding how casting is done - i.e. I recommeded using the ITCK Psionics rules and also mentioned that the Vancian rules will work fine as well. I think it could be more flexible so that people can choose the underlying mechanics from several options as well. That would allow for maximum flexibility in custom designing a system tailored to a specific campaign while still providing a consistent framework and set of guidelines for doing so.

 

[Bastoche]

For those who just jumped in !

This thread is not a rant or a complain about the current system. This is a thread to those interested in constructing a new magic system for D&D.

If you just jumped in please, read this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/messageboards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5533

before discussing things that has already been discussed. Thanks for your understanding.

 

[Painfully]

Arthur Tealeaf, I agree with a great deal of your comments above. Magic looses it's awe and mystery very quickly when players go shopping for items or just make anything they want with a little effort and some gold coins.

I think the concern is that in 3E the designers actually made it easy for players to "power up" their characters, the way many 1st and 2nd edition players were doing anyway. In order to keep the game interesting they decided that feats, skills, and magic had to be increased on a regular scale in 3E.

It shouldn't take too much work to realize a more magic-rare, or low-magic world. DM's are there to hold the balance and adjust the rules accordingly. If you're one of those DM's then I hope this thread is helping. But it's also in your own best interest to keep your changes as simple as possible and not rewrite the book. You and your players will thank you for it.

I think too many on this thread just expect someone else to do all the work and just come up with something that works for everyone else--it's not likely to happen.

If you have any NEW ideas and suggestions please add them to this thread, but please dont argue needlessly or defend your own system. Put it out there, and let the other DMs decide what they like--you don't like it? Don't argue, just move along to the next idea.

Thanks for reading. I'm looking forward to some more ideas here--and a few less rants and arguements. [realizing that this probably qualifies]

 

[Bastoche]

Kenjib, I haven't look at you occultist suggestion, and that reminds me of something I haven't mentioned in my previous posts.

I would prefer the create a new spell list and a new spell mechanic and to try as much as possible to keep the core spellcasting classes as is. Simply because I think that the concepts of druids, wizards sorceror and cleric would rightfully find their places in a low magic system without having to recreate them entirely. Simply building new spell lists and spellcasting rules should be enough I think.

That the wizard for exemple. Craft feats would be different (if rule discarted entirely), but metamagic feat could be kept and/or modified. I would keep the familar, but make it more like an animal companion rather than a magical being. So skills are the same, bonus feat are more or less the same. Spell progression could be the same, or could be modify. But essentialy. the spellcasting classes would change radically. What do you think ?

 

[mmadsen]

We covered a lot of ground in this thread's previous incarnation, and I thought it might be helpful to summarize some of the key points so far (or my take on them).

D&D presents rules suggesting a "high magic" world, one where magic is common, reliable, and flashy. A wizard's apprentice can cast Ray of Frost daily with no fear of unintended consequences -- and no doubt in any spectator's mind that he has cast a magic spell. Magic works like clockwork: observable, reliable, common, and not at all mysterious.

Many people would prefer a "low magic" system where magic is secretive and uncommon, where it exacts a price and leads to unintended consequences -- and where you're not always clear what's magic and what isn't.

Since the "low magic" people complained that D&D's magic system is bland and uninspiring, one of the first solutions offered was to spice up magic with evocative descriptions. Saying "I cast Magic Missile" is quite bland. Describing a flock of tiny demons winging toward your foe isn't. Good advice, but it still leaves us with wizards who can Magic Missile daily, at no real cost.

Another solution offered, pretty straightforward, was to restrict the levels played. At lower levels, D&D magic is...lower. If we want "low magic", this should solve our problem. But it doesn't. If D&D spells progressed from subtle to flashy, this would work quite well, but low-level staples include: Ray of Frost, Magic Missile, Color Spray, etc. And "low magic" staples include many higher-level spells that our low-level Wizards can't cast (e.g. Bestow Curse).

OK, that doesn't quite work, but what about replacing the core spellcasters with Oriental Adventure's Shaman class? This is actually quite similar to my own idea to shift around the spell lists, and I feel it could work pretty well -- it's a good start -- but I still feel you could get better results by hand-picking (as DM) an appropriate spell list. The Shaman's healing spells are still quite flashy, for instance. And the rest of the Shaman class doesn't necessarily fit a generic spellcaster; Improved Unarmed Attack would obviously have to go.

If we're going to set up new spell lists, how should we do it? Won't we destroy game balance? This opens a whole new barrel of monkeys. Is the current Wizard spell list balanced? Certain spells are much, much more popular at certain levels, and certain far less powerful spells are placed at higher levels.

For instance, Sleep effectively "kills" 2d4 Hit Dice worth of characters (who fail a Will save). Is it unbalanced to instead turn those victims into toads? Into statues of stone? Or to simply curse them until they find True Love or perform Herculean labors for the wizard (and probably die trying)?

This last example gets at another point that creeps into "low magic" versus "high magic": magic as plot device. Many of us would prefer magic that complicates the plot and provides new challenges, that offers something qualitatively different from the damage meted out by brave warriors with lances and swords. Ravenloft's curse mechanics, especially the twist of adding an Escape Clause to most spells, can turn magic into a story-generator, not a grenade-launcher.

If we move spells around and balance their power perfectly, we're still left with the problem that casters can cast a certain exact number of spells per day, they know exactly how many spells that is, and casting those spells has no other cost. If you can Charm Person "just" three times a day, is that any kind of limit? How can you explain a world where people have that power but don't use it every day? Is turning invisible for "just" half an hour a day much of a limit? How many banks could you rob?

There are a few ways to address to this. One simple change I've suggested in the past (but not in this thread so far) is to change "spells per day" into "spells per week" or "spells per month". This has little effect on dungeon-crawling spellcasters -- they clear out a dungeon in a day anyway -- but it explains why there's less magic in the world at large.

Or we can introduce a cost to "restocking" spell slots. Perhaps pious priests need to perform tasks for their god. Perhaps evil sorcerers need to spill innocent blood for their demon patrons. Perhaps the wizard needs to gather up herbs at midnight of Midsummer's Eve. These costs can naturally lead to more adventures and drama.

Or, as others have pointed out, we can force some kind of spell roll for spellcasting. Virtually every other system requires it. Failing the roll doesn't have to mean watching the Fireball fizzle. It can exact a game-mechanic cost on the caster (subdual damage, Con damage, damage to all abilities, cumulative penalties to any further spellcasting), it can mean unintended consequences (polymorphing someone else too, or changing into the wrong animal), whatever you want. But it does explain why magic would be saved up for special occasions, and it hopefully leads to more exciting stories.

 

[mmadsen]

The suggestion to building a low-magic D&D-like system was appealing to me at first, but most propositions I've read in the last few pages requires so much restructuration of the game that I'm not interested anymore.

Is there anyone out there who would like a simple low-magic D&D?

So new spell lists are too much restructuring for you?

Rebuild the spellcasting classes ? Random charts for spellcasting?

I certainly don't mind rebuilding the spellcasting classes if the newer versions are simpler than the existing versions. Replacing the spells-per-day tables with a spellcasting roll would be one example.

If the spellcaster can't even predict himself what outcome will his own spells have, then I believe you're better off with a no-magic D&D, not a low-magic D&D.

Why? If a wizard has a 99% chance of success instead of 100%, that ruins the whole system for you? Right now magic is more reliable than steel.

Magic has to be reliable to be viable and to exists. If it's not, then why the heck would there be spellcasters?

That's a pretty amusing question considering that there have been "spellcasters" in our own world despite the fact that magic does not work at all. If the line between magic and coincidence is blurry enough...

IMO, a low-magic campaign has a deterministic, non-flashy and reliable magic system, but nobody in the populace (i.e. among the NPC and the non-spellcasting PCs) has any idea of how magic works and what it is.

And in the opinion of many people here, a really low-magic campaign is one where you don't know when magic has even been used. A powerful talisman might give you, in game terms, +5 to all Saves -- but who will ever know if it ever really worked?

Backfires and wildmagic is a (sorry for the rudeness) stupid idea.

Because you say so?

There is at least two way to intepret the expression "low-magic". One way is by having few spellcasters, few magic item and few magical knowledge among the common people, the other is by designing underpowered spellcasting classes. One way or another, we blow fireball and magic missile from the spell list.

There are a few key points we should keep in mind when discussing "low magic". One, magic can seem rare, or more rare, if magic spells are subtle. Without Magic Missiles and Fireballs, we can suspend our disbelief a bit better, as in a pulp fiction "weird tale". Did the voodoo curse really work, or was it all coincidence.

Two, if the rule mechanics don't explain why spellcasters restrict their spell use, we're stuck with a logically inconsistent world. That is, if there's no real cost to magic, why aren't wizards turning invisible every day and robbing everyone blind. Why aren't they charming someone powerful every day? (And, from a gaming perspective, why would they ever put themselves in the one situation, an extended dungeon trek, where their limitations, i.e. limited spells per day, really matter?)

 

[kenjib]

Kenjib, I haven't look at you occultist suggestion, and that reminds me of something I haven't mentioned in my previous posts.

I would prefer the create a new spell list and a new spell mechanic and to try as much as possible to keep the core spellcasting classes as is. Simply because I think that the concepts of druids, wizards sorceror and cleric would rightfully find their places in a low magic system without having to recreate them entirely. Simply building new spell lists and spellcasting rules should be enough I think.

If you ignore the part I put in about using the PsiHB and ITCK rules, which I agree was a mistake and shouldn't have been in that post, and just look at the way I broke spell lists into skills and feats, all the system is, is a mechanic for people to create alternate spell lists and modifications to the casting rules (like adding subdual damage for example) in an orderly and cross-compatible manner. It's really not a big change if you just layer it on top of the wizard class. In fact, you could even recreate the PHB wizard exactly using this system. Just create a tradition that has the full wizard spell list, gains scribe scroll and summon familiar, but as a result is not allowed to learn any other traditions. An occult mage under those rules can be pretty much identical to the standard wizard. It's just intended as a loose framework for customization.

Ignore the PsiHB and If Thoughts Could Kill casting rules stuff (which I shouldn't have included - sorry) and just use the standard wizard and/or sorcerer as the underlying model. Eliminate spellcraft and the spell list and add my new rules to determine spell lists. You could even apply it to the cleric or druid classes if you want.

Is this getting too confusing now? If anyone wants me to post a revised version in a more clear manner let me know. I could clean up the last post and make the variant both easier to understand and lighter on the amount of rules modification.

 

[Desdichado]

Bastoche quoth:
To Joshua: I mostly agree with your comment on my posts, it only seems to me that I was unclear, since your comment doesn't seem to me to be antithesis to what I said.

No, I wasn't trying to be the antithesis of yours either: I disagreed in much more subtle ways with certain elements of your post. However, I agreed whole-heartedly with most of it. Frankly, I'm not as interested in rebalancing the spell-lists, as that still leaves me with Vancian magic, which I don't particularly like. Some folks on the earlier thread suggested work-arounds to make it less "fire-and-forget" but to me they still feel like work-arounds, not like robust solutions (can you tell I'm typing from work? ) Anyway, like I said, I'm more interested in stealing a "magic" system like psionics, the Force or the One Power than I am in keeping the current system but trying to alter it subtly. Just give me something completely different. I realise that the real gist of this thread has gone another way, but that's OK.

Also sprach SonofLilith:
If you don't want high-magic campains, then don't run them. No one is forcing you play with spells flying everywhere. If you don't like something in a rule book, or don't think something is balanced, then change it.

Uhh, not to sound snarky, but no kidding. The very first post in the earlier thread said very clearly that we would have to change it and he wanted suggestions on how to do so and make it work. Unfortunately, at least half the posts in the thread have not been on that subject, but have instead been arguments that it shouldn't be changed at all, or changes that don't really address the issues that others have had with them.

Frankly, as mentioned above, I have my solution. I think the initial purpose of the thread is a fascinating idea though, and one that much better matches my preferred genre of fantasy.

 

[Aaron L]

If you don't like flashy magic effects, why not remove them? Make Magic Missle into Heart Strike, and have a none visual force strike at the targets heart, the only visual clue being the victim clutching his chest in pain. Color Spray wouldn't be very flashy if you made it Invisible Hypnotic Wave. Fireball to Oppressive Wave of Heat. Now as for making magic hard to attain and mysterious, make drawbacks to spellcasting, as in dealing with extraplanar horrors neccessary to maintain power.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hm...

Perhaps before the thread goes farther, we might consider some sort of mission statement, a what-we-want-to accomplish.

Do we want to limit the power of spellcasting classes? How does one define the "power" of spellcasting classes?

Do we want to make the spells "less flashy?" This is actually a totally different goal, keep in mind...

Do we want to limit the spellcaster's damage potential while uping their ..er..let's call it "utility" potential?

Do we want to set up a new magic system? Do we want to limit magic in the entire world (applying to monsters, too), or just to the PC's?

Do we want to limit the access and availability of magic items?

Do we want to increase the risk involved in casting a spell?

Do we want to emulate a particular method of magic found somewhere else?

Do we care about balance issues? Do we mind if one class is suddenly a lot less attractive?


I probably missed a lot...

....Honestly, I just joined in, and I have no idea what we're trying to do...and if people just want to complain about how the current system "isn't right," I'm not going to get a lot out of the conversation, so I probably won't bother to check back. I'm happy with the current system, thankyouverymuch, and just would like to help input my ideas for a different system.

Anyhoo, just thought I'd throw out the idea. The thread seems quite schitzophrenic, so perhaps narrowing our focus to a few goals and then actually trying to accomplish one at a time, while not bothering with the others, would be conducive to actually accomplishing those goals. (shrug) That's my idea, anyway.