D&D 4E What Should 4e magic be like?

[Kae'Yoss]

Simple reason: Because why else have magic instead of just limiting characters to swinging swords and using skills?

Because I want to blow up enemies with fireballs instead of sticking bits of metal into them or sneaking past them.

IMHO, there is no point to having a distinct set of mechanics (in this case, magic) unless it is *different* from other game mechanics.

It already is, isn't it. We have spell slots, we can achieve magical effects like enslaving another's mind or frying whole groups of people at once, and so on.

Those are differences that make sense. Not just differences for differences' sake. Plus, it makes sense that fighting can be dangerous to you, too. If you don't believe me, pick up nunchucks, or a scythe, or something like that and play around with them a bit. Or bolas. Or try some somersaults if you think tumble shouldn't have any chance to mess things up.

I fully understand that it's easy enough to balance spellcasting with melee combat or skill uses simply by making its mechanics identical, but then why bother having magic at all?

Who says we should make them identical? I just say that concepts that apply to all of them shouldn't be exclusive for one type of mechanic.

So, one way to make magic different from other mechanics if you don't want to differentiate it using the current route (big booms limited times per day) is to give it a unique feel of unpredictability and danger (big booms with potentially hazardous consequences).

So if the guy who wants to be a spell slinger doesn't like unpredictable stuff, that's too bad for him?

No. Dangerous effects with risks involved might be fun for some people, but others don't like it. And the choice of character concept should not be influenced by things like this.

So make risky manoeuvres an optional rule. And do it for everyone so once again, the guy who actually likes it doesn't have to play a wimpy magic-hurler if he wants to play a manly barbarian. That's as bad as forcing the guy who wants to play a smart spellcaster to play a brainless stickswinger to avoid risky business.

This has the side advantage of feeding potential game flavor (making magic creepy and dangerous to be around)

It's actually a disadvantage if you don't want your magic to be creepy and dangerous. Bad flavour can be worse than no flavour, because with no flavour, you can add your own, but it gets harder if you first have to get rid of bad flavour.

and of allowing designers to give mages decent combat abilities/survivability without worrying that it'll unbalance them, since they may *need* a reliable attack/defense mechanic to fall back on.

Another thing I don't like about it: I don't want to have burly battle mages. At least not all the time. Sometimes, I want to play that weakling who couldn't survive without his magic.

 

[hong]

So, one way to make magic different from other mechanics if you don't want to differentiate it using the current route (big booms limited times per day) is to give it a unique feel of unpredictability and danger (big booms with potentially hazardous consequences). This has the side advantage of feeding potential game flavor (making magic creepy and dangerous to be around)

Bleh.

 

[Geoffrey]

I just wish magic was creepier and more atmospheric. All too often, magic is just too video game-y. I think it has become that way to help new people get into the game but I think magic loses something when it becomes a numbers game.

I wish magic had the same feel it does in the stories of Clark Ashton Smith, Robert Howard and HP Lovecraft. Magic should be mysterious and weird.

I agree. It would be a big step in the right direction to replace the current magic system with something similiar to that of the d20 version of Call of Cthulhu.

 

[Mistwell]

I agree with the sentiment that it should be spells per encounter, not spells per day.

The iconic wizard in my opinion doesn't ever run out of spells. They might run out of energy to power their spells, but they don't suddenly no longer have the ability to cast any spells until they sleep and refresh their "spell slots", or have to "memorize" their spells every day.

Warlocks seem closer to my iconic wizard than the current wizards do.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Because I want to blow up enemies with fireballs instead of sticking bits of metal into them or sneaking past them.

Right. I happen to think that there can be a tier for that, as I noted earlier. Reliable blast magic is just fine in my book.

It already is, isn't it. We have spell slots, we can achieve magical effects like enslaving another's mind or frying whole groups of people at once, and so on.

Those are differences that make sense. Not just differences for differences' sake.

I fail to see how spell slots "make [any more] sense" than risk of spellcasting failure.

Plus, it makes sense that fighting can be dangerous to you, too. If you don't believe me, pick up nunchucks, or a scythe, or something like that and play around with them a bit. Or bolas. Or try some somersaults if you think tumble shouldn't have any chance to mess things up.

Sure.

Who says we should make them identical? I just say that concepts that apply to all of them shouldn't be exclusive for one type of mechanic.

Fair enough. I have no problem with adding in risks to skill checks and attacks if that floats your boat. Note that I suggested earlier that this should be an optional rule.

Now I do agree that spellcasting fumbles are a bit annoying as a core rule, but why not just reduce everything to a spellcasting check?

So if the guy who wants to be a spell slinger doesn't like unpredictable stuff, that's too bad for him?

See above.

No. Dangerous effects with risks involved might be fun for some people, but others don't like it. And the choice of character concept should not be influenced by things like this.

See above again.

So make risky manoeuvres an optional rule. And do it for everyone so once again, the guy who actually likes it doesn't have to play a wimpy magic-hurler if he wants to play a manly barbarian. That's as bad as forcing the guy who wants to play a smart spellcaster to play a brainless stickswinger to avoid risky business.

Sure.

It's actually a disadvantage if you don't want your magic to be creepy and dangerous. Bad flavour can be worse than no flavour, because with no flavour, you can add your own, but it gets harder if you first have to get rid of bad flavour.

See above AGAIN.

I was responding to the folks who want "creepy, dangerous" magic. I think one can go with anything in between. My own issue with magic is that I hate the spell-slot system. Thus, I'd like to see something that includes three magical ability sets (as I noted earlier): (1) Always-on buffs and always-usable attacks; (2) per-encounter spells; and (3) limited-use BIG effects. I think the latter are essential to differentiating magic from the mundane; clearly, you disagree. However, I happen to think that traveling half the world in an eyeblink, raising the dead, and seeing through space and time are things that need some kind of balancing mechanic, and I happen to dislike using spell slots for that. YMMV.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I agree. It would be a big step in the right direction to replace the current magic system with something similiar to that of the d20 version of Call of Cthulhu.

If you want to use that magic system you can always port it into 4e. I for one do not want to stick those kind of restrictions on a game with fundamentally different assumptions as a base system. As a modular variant rule to drop in & replace the core magic system for those who want it yes, but using it as part of the balance assumptions of the core system would make implementing regular D&D style magic troublesome.

EDIT: I'm on Hong's side?... There's something very disturbing about that.

 

[hong]

I agree with the sentiment that it should be spells per encounter, not spells per day.

The iconic wizard in my opinion doesn't ever run out of spells. They might run out of energy to power their spells, but they don't suddenly no longer have the ability to cast any spells until they sleep and refresh their "spell slots", or have to "memorize" their spells every day.

Warlocks seem closer to my iconic wizard than the current wizards do.

Heathen! Nothing is more iconic wizard than bat guano!

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Ruleslawyer IMO the single most problematic part of what you are favoring is the game balance issues it creates. The core game system creates the overall balance of feature and progression. If the basic assumptions used to create that balance are essentially a low-powered niche of the entire system's spectrum it will introduce errors in balance for most players and DMs who will use a higher-powered variant. It's much easier to set the baseline high and adjust for restrictions than to set the baseline low and scale it up.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Change the way spell levels work, so that a 1st level wizard casts a 1st level wizard spell, and a 15th level wizard can cast a 15th level wizard spell. Remove the 0 to 9 restriction, and scale everything to the level.

So, the current 3rd level spells, for instance, would become either 5th or 6th level spells, based on a re-writing of the PHB. This will require a little work on things like minimum ability score requirements and save DCs, but that's all tweakable.

Dave

 

[ruleslawyer]

Ruleslawyer IMO the single most problematic part of what you are favoring is the game balance issues it creates. The core game system creates the overall balance of feature and progression. If the basic assumptions used to create that balance are essentially a low-powered niche of the entire system's spectrum it will introduce errors in balance for most players and DMs who will use a higher-powered variant. It's much easier to set the baseline high and adjust for restrictions than to set the baseline low and scale it up.

?

Why are you assuming that this is a low-powered magic variant? I never mentioned anything about spellcasting power levels. My point is merely the following:

1) It would be nice to ditch the spell slot mechanic. Reserve feats and similar mechanics get you part of the way there; a mechanic for spinning up and using tokens or something else to generate spells each encounter gets you further. For the big booms, there are umpteen ways to base it around a success roll, so why not use that instead of slots? Sure, it's less reliable; so are attacks and skill uses.

2) For those who want dangerous magic (am I going to need to put in this disclaimer each and every post I make in this thread?), a spellcasting skill check (as in EoM:ME or True Sorcery) would allow you to add that feature by enabling the use of a mishap or the like.