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

Level Up goes well beyond the 8 schools of Magic in D&D.

(1) acid, (2) affliction, (3) air, (4) arcane,(5) attack, (6) beasts, (7) chaos, (8) cold, (9) communication, (10) compulsion, (11) divine, (12) earth, (13) enhancement, (14) evil, (15) fear, (16) fire, (17) force, (18) good, (19) healing, (20) knowledge, (21) law, (22) lightning, (23) movement, (24) nature, (25) necrotic, (26) negation, (27) obscurement, (28) planar, (29) plants, (30) poison, (31) prismatic, (32) protection, (33) psychic, (34) radiant, (35) scrying, (36) senses, (37) shadow, (38) shapechanging, (39) sound, (40) storm, (41) summoning, (42) technological, (43) telepathy, (44) teleportation, (45) terrain, (46) thunder (47), time, (48) transformation, (49) unarmed, (50) undead, (51) utility, 52) water, (53) weaponry, (54) weather.

It's probably a good thing that there isn't a Wizard subclass for each and every one of these. 😋 Just one, the Wizard (Arcanist).
I am not sure what the benefit is of that degree of granularity.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Level Up goes well beyond the 8 schools of Magic in D&D.

(1) acid, (2) affliction, (3) air, (4) arcane,(5) attack, (6) beasts, (7) chaos, (8) cold, (9) communication, (10) compulsion, (11) divine, (12) earth, (13) enhancement, (14) evil, (15) fear, (16) fire, (17) force, (18) good, (19) healing, (20) knowledge, (21) law, (22) lightning, (23) movement, (24) nature, (25) necrotic, (26) negation, (27) obscurement, (28) planar, (29) plants, (30) poison, (31) prismatic, (32) protection, (33) psychic, (34) radiant, (35) scrying, (36) senses, (37) shadow, (38) shapechanging, (39) sound, (40) storm, (41) summoning, (42) technological, (43) telepathy, (44) teleportation, (45) terrain, (46) thunder (47), time, (48) transformation, (49) unarmed, (50) undead, (51) utility, 52) water, (53) weaponry, (54) weather.

It's probably a good thing that there isn't a Wizard subclass for each and every one of these. 😋 Just one, the Wizard (Arcanist).
I'm assuming these are keywords, and every spell is tagged with one or more of these?
 


They are listed as "schools" here. I don't have time to dig into what that means per the rules, tho.
Yea, looking through that, they're definitely keyword tags on spells. Pretty useful. Not sure at what level they impact and interact with class features.
 

Yea, looking through that, they're definitely keyword tags on spells. Pretty useful. Not sure at what level they impact and interact with class features.
Some classes (like Heralds, the Paladin equivalent) get access to spells by thematic tag. It's pretty common to get "add all spells of the Law school to your class spell list" as a feature.
 

Level up Adventurer's Guide, page 493:

The formal, classical spell schools are not the only way magic-users throughout the ages have labeled spells. In the multiverse there is a near-infinite array of spell schools; some are based on elemental sources (like beasts, fire, plants, shadow, water, and so on), while others are based on effects (compulsion, healing, and more). While a spell can belong to only one classical spell school, it can belong to any number of other spell schools. These spell schools have no rules of their own, but may be referred to by other game rules. For instance, a monster’s description might state that it can cast any spell in the fire school.

Alter Self​

2nd-level (Transmutation, Arcane, Movement, Shapechanging, Weaponry)

The Alter Self spell is typically seen as a spell from the school of Transmutation. But it could also be a spell from the Arcane, Movement, Shapechanging and Weaponry schools if your setting had additional schools of magic beyond the classic 8.
 

3) Cantrips should have a large but finite casting limit (say, 20/day), to allow for combat use but preventing logical abuses of being cast hundreds of times a day.
This thought from TwoSix on page 2.... wow, that jumped into my head as such an amazing and simple thing. Easy too: 1 cantrip per day, per point of the associated stat (so, 16 to 20) - multiclass casters use the lowest stat. (For just a touch more, add proficiency bonus, so it's like 18 to 26? so the casters taking feats still get a little progression over time.) But this way the casters will need to spend their spell slots during a long day, not hoard them all for the "boss fight" while just pew-pewing their 2d10 damage through the rest of the dungeon.

(combats in my game are more "8-12 rounds" than the white room web conversations that toss around "3 rounds of combat" examples. so two fights in, you're out of cantrips! In fact, I would love to see a mechanic similar to many Class Abilities, where casters are starting to think "Is it worth sacking a spell slot, so I can get one more use of this cantrip??")

Honestly, though, I would be easily convinced to go the other extreme -- cantrips are unlimited but never more powerful (or only fractionally stronger). Firebolt is still doing 1d10 in the archmage's hands, that's why he learned more powerful spells! He still doesn't need to carry a heavy crossbow, but he's gonna tap you with a lightning bolt not a lightning lure.

Per the OP's question though, 32 pages ago... My answer for "what should magic be able to accomplish" is "depends on the campaign". Previous campaign, the PCs were planes-hopping, friends with planetars, and summoning elder deities for Q&A sessions. This campaign, dimension door is the most powerful spell in the party's hands - and their foes (mostly) have nothing more powerful than fly or fireball. [Exceptions abound, both "low spells w/upcasting" and the ogre mage's cone of cold.] Because that's the campaign feel we wanted.

As a baseline, though, I think magic should get more dangerous and/or more difficult as the spells get more powerful. I don't want fledgling wizards growing tentacles or causing explosions of pink posies just because they cast mage armor for the day. But maybe - like Event Horizon (the movie) - teleport and plane shift come with some risk? Conjure X sometimes ends with the critters breaking free of control (like the old conjure elemental spell!) and rampaging until put down? Anyone remember the Midkemia novels, and the mage who always had fresh fruit? He didn't conjure it, he was actually (magically) stealing it from a specific merchant's fruit stall... maybe that merchant gets fed up and hires some adventurers to find the thief!


Also, I absolutely prefer THEMATIC RESTRICTIONS (aka "specializations"), which previous editions had, and many people on this thread have mentioned. For all Casters! While the Necromancer uses necromancy, and maybe strays a little into enchantment (killing someone's will) and evocation (some "directed necrotic energy" spells)... the Cleric of the Moon has a lot of handy "night" and "light" based spells, curing and commanding insanity, and is great against lycanthropes. But while she's great against the enchanter, she's the wrong match against the Necromancer, because Moon magic just doesn't have anti-undead powers. The evoker can be a direct damage dealer, but a specialized "elementalist" will have more options. Tim the Evoker can blast you with fire, ice, or even concentrated pummeling blasts of air, but you need an "elementalist (fire)" to create a wall of fire or fire shield.

Without going through the entire spell list and rebalancing every spell, you can quickly establish thematic limits. Something like "Necromancers have full access [level 1 to 9] to necromantic spells, medium access [level 1 to 3] to enchantment, medium themed access to evocation, conjuration, and divination (i.e. conjure undead, but not all conjuring; spirit bolt for necrotic damage; ask a spirit of the owner to identify his item, but can't just walk up to a magic device and suss it out), and restricted access (level 1 to 3, but costs +2 spell slots) to any other wizard spell". "Clerics of the Moon have full access to all Moon-domain spells, major access (level 1 to 6) to all other spells in the Moon goddess's other domains, and restricted access to all other cleric spells."

At great effort, I would try building a "magical physics" rules engine that was internally consistent, and roughly balanced with martial capabilities. "Level 1 spells can manipulate 2 pounds of force, plus 1 per proficiency bonus" - enough to hit with moderate power, or create 3 "pounds" of fire, or cast haste on your familiar. Fire is the most damaging element (for example, no value judgement), which is why fire spells are so common... "a pound of fire does about 2-3 damage, while a pound of lightning is (always 1) up to 4 damage, but unreliable". So the cantrip is going to do about 4-6 fire damage or 1-8 lightning, while a 1st level spell will cause a blast of 8 to 12 fire damage (or a fan of it, doing 4-6 over a wide area); 1st level lightning does 1 to 16 damage, and refuses to become "AoE" at such low amounts. [Obviously, this is where you say "go play something other than D&D"!]
 

The problem isn't that magic doesn't have costs. It's that it's trying to satisfy two radically different camps' desires, and the compromise between them essentially always leads to "magic is just the best"...which isn't helped by the fact that there are subsets of both groups who WANT magic to be just better than everything else.

The first group is like you, except they don't necessarily require that magic have steep costs. They want magic to be powerful, usually justified with naturalistic explanations like "why would anyone ever learn to be a Wizard if you can be just as powerful doing anything else" (a flawed argument, but not the point of discussion at present). They want that "powerful artillery" feel, but don't necessarily associate it with "being extremely fragile" etc. Their position is reasonable; they want magic to be a potent tool, since that justifies calling it "magic" in the first place.

The second group wants magic to be their whole bag. They see it as, more or less, the promise the game is making them by even offering a Wizard class, a "I have magic and magic and also magic and then some more magic, and finally a bit of recharge for my magic on top." They--quite reasonably--want to be doing fun, productive, engaging things most of the time. They aren't really attached to magic being powerful or not, they just want it accessible and useful: "I signed up for the class fantasy of being someone who uses magic to manipulate the world. Why should I be spending half or more of my time doing things that have nothing at all to do with that class fantasy?"

The problem is...when one side wants widely-accessible magic and doesn't really care that much whether it's strong or weak, and another side wants magic that is very powerful and doesn't really care that much whether it's incredibly rare or quite prolific...the only way to please both of them is to give magic that is both powerful and prolific. Further, neither side has any reason to accept a sacrifice: If the accessible-magic crowd accepts the steep costs, they're getting nothing they actually care about, and if the powerful-magic crowd accepts the reduced power, they're in the same boat.

IMO, at some point, D&D is going to have to embrace one of the two paths. It's going to have to decide once and for all that magic really is ridiculously good, but harshly punishing or restrictive in its use, thus turning off the sizable plurality (or even majority) who prefer accessible magic. Or, it's going to have to decide once and for all that magic is accessible, but only rarely achieves incredible power and influence...thus turning off the heavily vocal, and more importantly highly invested, minority who prefer the older way with its punishments, costs, or limitations.

They can't keep pushing this appeasement of both sides. It's going to bite them, sooner or later.

Ive seen this take imagining these audiences and reactions.

I feel the reality is quite not true, i feel people are okay with downsides to being a wizard in DnD due to the downsides of the class being proliferate in pretty much every video game or RPG on the market.

I agree with your overall point they have to pick a side, but im saying is the side that DnD was founded on was the fact that wizards risks are simply supposed to be them being a bit squishy and vunerable., this is a common thought in all of DnD community.

And i feel how we portray that vulnerably shouldnt be lethality, but instead risk of interruption, which can be done in many ways, without muhc downsides since you can exempt cantrips from them, get a outcome where the traditional gameplay and purpose of the M/C balance is preserved, and allows magic to be fun and powerful without major risk.
 

Ive seen this take imagining these audiences and reactions.

I feel the reality is quite not true, i feel people are okay with downsides to being a wizard in DnD due to the downsides of the class being proliferate in pretty much every video game or RPG on the market.

I agree with your overall point they have to pick a side, but im saying is the side that DnD was founded on was the fact that wizards risks are simply supposed to be them being a bit squishy and vunerable., this is a common thought in all of DnD community.
I really, really, really don't think this accurately reflects contemporary views. I think it reflects only classic views--which are now by far the minority within the D&D community.

Particularly because the thing you're talking about is "squishy and vulnerable". That's not a cost for using magic. That's just...casters are naturally more fragile. "Costs" for doing magic is "if you roll badly your spell backfires and kills you" or "...and hurts your friends instead of your enemies" or "...and breaks your mind" or whatever else. You are conflating the ultra-baseline costs (fundamental class features like HP-per-level) with costs to spellcasting itself. Which is what people in this thread have, specifically and explicitly, repeatedly called for. Moreover, at least a couple posters have advocated for particularly nasty consequences, including ones that directly and specifically harm your allies.

And i feel how we portray that vulnerably shouldnt be lethality, but instead risk of interruption, which can be done in many ways, without muhc downsides since you can exempt cantrips from them, get a outcome where the traditional gameplay and purpose of the M/C balance is preserved, and allows magic to be fun and powerful without major risk.
I'm...really not actually sure what you're saying here. Particularly because the exact costs most people ask for ARE lethality, or at least significant threat thereof, or something that is functionally lethal even if it isn't explicitly "your character has now died", e.g. "you went completely mad from casting spells, so your character is irrecoverably insane, time to go back to character creation".
 

I really, really, really don't think this accurately reflects contemporary views. I think it reflects only classic views--which are now by far the minority within the D&D community.

Particularly because the thing you're talking about is "squishy and vulnerable". That's not a cost for using magic. That's just...casters are naturally more fragile. "Costs" for doing magic is "if you roll badly your spell backfires and kills you" or "...and hurts your friends instead of your enemies" or "...and breaks your mind" or whatever else. You are conflating the ultra-baseline costs (fundamental class features like HP-per-level) with costs to spellcasting itself. Which is what people in this thread have, specifically and explicitly, repeatedly called for. Moreover, at least a couple posters have advocated for particularly nasty consequences, including ones that directly and specifically harm your allies.
I'm fine with wizards being all of squishy, vulnerable, and capable of generating nasty consequences when they mess up. :)

Clerics get to skip the squishy and vulnerable bit but I still want their spells to be interruptable and capable of generating nasty consequences when messed up. Example: a cleric PC in my game was once casting Cure Light Wounds in mid-combat on a down-but-not-dead party member, he got interrupted and the spell reversed into Cause Light Wounds, killing the downed character instead of healing it. (the lesson here is don't cast spells while in reach of a melee opponent!)
I'm...really not actually sure what you're saying here. Particularly because the exact costs most people ask for ARE lethality, or at least significant threat thereof, or something that is functionally lethal even if it isn't explicitly "your character has now died", e.g. "you went completely mad from casting spells, so your character is irrecoverably insane, time to go back to character creation".
Have you seen what DCCRPG does to its casters over the long term? Completely mad is just the start. :)
 

Remove ads

Top