D&D General What Should Magic Be Able To Do, From a Gameplay Design Standpoint?

[EzekielRaiden]

Not my experience at all in over a decade of running APs in PF1, but im not getting into it. I love me some NPcs made just like PCs and never experienced the issues (except increased workload, which I developed some great work arounds). So, none of this is to be taken as matter of fact, but as potential pain points.

I don't see how it is possible to prevent it.

The fact that you have developed coping mechanisms for a problem does not mean the problem isn't there...

 

[TwoSix]

Also, anything a PC can do with magic an NPC should be able to do as well. I think that this will get overlooked if we just focus on the PCs. They can, even should, face enemy spellcasters. Those spellcasters ought to be able to cast anything the PCs can cast.

In the narrative, it's most likely that other characters beyond the PCs have access to identical effects, and often even stronger effects than the PCs might ever gain access to. (Unless the narrative is about the PC or PCs having access to something unique within the setting.)

Whether that similarity in narrative is reflected by a similarity in mechanics is an aesthetic and gameplay decision, and almost certainly beyond the scope of this thread, which is focused on the idea of limitations of magic, both in-narrative and mechanically.

 

[jgsugden]

I've grappled with this for 40 years.

My best answer: Magic can and should do very specific things. Magic should be tools in a toolkit, without any piece of it being master tool. You should want to switch between tools and find that you don't always have the right tool for the job - so somebody else needs to shine when you're not situated well for the problem... but you should always feel like you had a chance to be situated well had you made other choices.

At the highest level magic should approach being able to do anything. You should have more versatile magics available. You should have more powerful magics available. The fantasy of the spellcaster often involves approaching unlimited power - and the system should support that fantasy.

What magic should not generally do: Invalidate martial and other non-magical PCs. Your most powerful damaging spells should exceed what the fighter can pull off in a round - but not by much - and you should not be able to keep up that level of damage. The fighter should outclass you over longer combat scenarios by keeping up the damage at higher levels longer.

They also should make sense. In a world where people craft magic, the magic they craft should fill a need. One of the biggest gaps I see in most fantasy settings is that 95% of the magic tends to be combat focused. Who has the money to have magic items made? Nobles, merchants and royalty do ... so what items would they have made? Self driving carriages, communication tools, unseen servants at a whim, continual light stones, etc... The rich might give their bodyguard powerful combat magic ... but they're also going to pay a wizard to build a device that casts a 1 hour phantasmal force of their own specification on them ... (if you know, you know). I have a whole book worth of materials devoted to 'Mundane Magics' that list out spells, items, constructs and servants that the rich and powerful would pay to have.

 

[Reynard]

They also should make sense. In a world where people craft magic, the magic they craft should fill a need. One of the biggest gaps I see in most fantasy settings is that 95% of the magic tends to be combat focused.

The PHB is primarily focused on what PCs need to do their job -- adventuring. I think it is common for worlds to include a lot of magic not directed at adventuring, but it is in the background as flavor, rather than statted up in the PHB.

Because if were in the PHB, the PCs would figure out how to use it to kill goblins.

 

[Pedantic]

The PHB is primarily focused on what PCs need to do their job -- adventuring. I think it is common for worlds to include a lot of magic not directed at adventuring, but it is in the background as flavor, rather than statted up in the PHB.

Because if were in the PHB, the PCs would figure out how to use it to kill goblins.

That just sounds like more reason to put it into the PHB. If there's military applications for non-combat magic, or as is more often the case, economic applications of combat magic, then the setting rapidly starts to feel artificial if you try and draw a division between the two. If a PC can find a goblin killing use for the cleaning spell, someone else should be about as capable.

 

[Shardstone]

As I stated in the OP, this is primarily about PC casters.

I hope you read all this!

I think the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Warlock, are all perfect where they're at in terms of capabilities.

Bards have a good support and condition list with little damage involved. Very much trickster magic.

Clerics have the most healing, as well as a number of support spells.

Druids have a lot of conjuration, emanation, and nature-themed spells.

Warlocks are primarily blasters and cursers that have a dark fantasy aesthetic.

That leaves Sorcerers and Wizards as issues for two drastically different reasons.

Sorcerers have a strong Arcane list now but the spells in it are a bit too rigid. Sorcerers could do with a revamp, where they get most of their spells from their Subclass, and their base spell list include spells that can flex to fit theme, like how Chaos Bolt can have different damage types etc.

Wizard is an abomination that has every literal super power you could ever imagine on its spell list. I truly think it is a huge weakness in D&D design to have the wizard class as is. It sucks up so much space both thematically and mechanically. It's the "choose your own mechanics" class where you can pick and learn every spell to change your build as you want. So big is the spell list that it makes it hard to add new casters, because so many genres and themes of magic are ate up by the wizard. They can do all eight schools in high amount.

On a more specific level, some spells are IMO too low of a level. Charm Person, Hold Person, Bless, and Guidance are IMO too accessible. 3rd-5th level spells are altogether fine.

6th-9th level spells are also fine, but I think that 9th level spells should have a longer "cooldown" on them. Being able to grant a wish every day is IMO the domain of deific characters and archfey etc. Being able to grant a wish every week and risking losing it is much more mortal IMO.

6th, 7th, and 8th level spells don't generally have effects all that crazy. Disintergrate is cool, so is FInger of Death. But the flashy spells like Earthquake or Tsunami have really small areas of effects. These spells FEEL like 3rd-5th level spells but with bigger numbers.

There are standouts, of course. Forcecage. Plane Shift. Teleport. Forcecage is an issue of mechanical balance, but the other two are often complained about because of what they allow. But Teleport is essentially just fast travel to a place you've already been; it's real function isn't to kill exploration challenges, but to drastically increase the pace of the game. This is reinforced by how teleport is dangerous to use to places you've never been before.

Plane Shift probably shouldn't be a spell IMO. I think it works better as a magic item. Regardless, Plane Shift essentially is the "license to expand your campaign into more esoteric lands" spell. In other words, its a spell of aesthetics, that is, a spell meant to add new flavors to the game. Ultimately, I don't think it disrupts play, it just forces the GM to think more fantastical.

I think one potential problem I haven't discussed yet is the amount of spells each player gets. 5R essentially increased the number of spells every spellcaster now has access too. I'm not sure if I agree with that. On his patreon, Mearls has started introducing spells in 5 tiers, and each spell has a "Beyond the Rules" paragraph at the end of its description. These paragraphs tell the GM other acceptable and creative ways the spell could be used. An example is Spiritual Weapon could recreate a legendary weapon or relic, which could effect religion checks or audiences with NPCs and so on. A spell like Bless could be used to just give someone a good day if no die is rolled for the bonus d4. Etc etc.

By decreasing the number of spells, and by encouraging DMs and players to use spells creatively, you create much more sensible caster PCs. Right now, caster PCs ultimately feel unwieldy. You start with a handful of spells but once you have more than 8-10 of them + cantrips + class abilities + magic items + feats, it gets hard to keep up with. Each spell is essentially a feature that you have X uses of per short or long rest, so as compared to a Rogue, a spellcaster has 10+ more features. You have to think about how to sue these features, when they are most effective, what they do, and so on. It's just a lot. But when spells can be used in more creative ways, you cut down on what has essentially become spell bloat.

I think also think some spells could be given more significant benefits when cast at higher levels. For example, Fireball. If Burning Hands is level 1, maybe casting it as a level 3 spell makes it into Fireball, and Level 7 makes it into Firestorm. This means fewer spells, and that the spells you do choose are more impactful not only because of Beyond the Rules stuff but because the spells change as you grow more powerful.

But to get back to your original question, I don't think most spellcasters are doing too much. I think they are just overburdened by too-similar options, and that Wizard sucks up way too much space.

 

[NN]

id like magic to be bad at permanence.

A wall of fire that lasts for a fight? Ok

A wall of iron that lasts for ever? Nope

A wall of iron that lasts forever and destroys the iron -mining industry? Nope nope nope

Id lkie magic to be a lot more expensive than the nonmagical method for mundane things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This principle is not as universal as you are claiming.

Perfect symmetry between PC and NPC rules has a very key issue: NPCs do not have the same gameplay purpose, contribution to the experience, nor (in essentially all cases) length or quantity of presence in the gameplay as PCs do. Demanding that anything PCs can do, NPCs can do, always no matter what, is a recipe for many ills, among them DM burnout, DM-player arms races (e.g. "scry vs scry" behavior and the resulting never-ending cascade of magic defenses and counters), and severe issues with encounter design (because NPC spellcasters strong enough to not keel over from a particularly vehement PC fart will be bringing far too much magic mojo, able to drop an entire day's worth of spells in a single encounter.)

It's a lovely idea. In a purified no-story, all-"come what may", sandbox/hexcrawl game experience, it's even productive, because the whole point there is that there is no arc, no point nor direction, there is only the places you chose to go and the things you happened to see (or not see) there. But such an aggressively "no story, just events" playstyle is pretty unforgiving, and most players are looking for at least some degree of satisfying narrative or at least satisfying conclusions, which requires that the experience be shaped to suit that end, to at least some extent. That doesn't mean this playstyle should be left by the wayside, to be clear, but it should be seen for what it is: an uncompromising requirement that, if followed in full, tends to exclude a number of things players really enjoy about playing tabletop RPGs.

None of those issues are a priority for me, but rather a necessary evil that occasionally has to be catered to for playability. I want gamism playing as minimal a role at my table as I can practically manage. That will never be zero role, but it can and will be less than what I am taking to be the average desire of the RPG community. I am comfortable with that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've grappled with this for 40 years.

My best answer: Magic can and should do very specific things. Magic should be tools in a toolkit, without any piece of it being master tool. You should want to switch between tools and find that you don't always have the right tool for the job - so somebody else needs to shine when you're not situated well for the problem... but you should always feel like you had a chance to be situated well had you made other choices.

At the highest level magic should approach being able to do anything. You should have more versatile magics available. You should have more powerful magics available. The fantasy of the spellcaster often involves approaching unlimited power - and the system should support that fantasy.

What magic should not generally do: Invalidate martial and other non-magical PCs. Your most powerful damaging spells should exceed what the fighter can pull off in a round - but not by much - and you should not be able to keep up that level of damage. The fighter should outclass you over longer combat scenarios by keeping up the damage at higher levels longer.

They also should make sense. In a world where people craft magic, the magic they craft should fill a need. One of the biggest gaps I see in most fantasy settings is that 95% of the magic tends to be combat focused. Who has the money to have magic items made? Nobles, merchants and royalty do ... so what items would they have made? Self driving carriages, communication tools, unseen servants at a whim, continual light stones, etc... The rich might give their bodyguard powerful combat magic ... but they're also going to pay a wizard to build a device that casts a 1 hour phantasmal force of their own specification on them ... (if you know, you know). I have a whole book worth of materials devoted to 'Mundane Magics' that list out spells, items, constructs and servants that the rich and powerful would pay to have.

Agreed. Magic in D&D is far too focused on what the designers believe PCs want to do with it. Which appears to be mostly kickin' monster butt. And not focused enough IMO on what such power would logically be used for in the setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The PHB is primarily focused on what PCs need to do their job -- adventuring. I think it is common for worlds to include a lot of magic not directed at adventuring, but it is in the background as flavor, rather than statted up in the PHB.

Because if were in the PHB, the PCs would figure out how to use it to kill goblins.

Maybe. I don't think most game designers give players enough credit.