D&D General Who Invents Spells, and How Old Are They

[Baron Opal II]

Who invented the common spells?

They were discovered or invented piecemeal over time. Some were adaptations of powers granted by spiritual entities once mortals better understood how to gather the flux of Chaos or vril of Pattern. The Fundaments of Will by Trevyn Dannaj is the foundational text for Trevonic magical theory, which is the basis for modern spellcasting.

How old are they?

Trevonic theory is about 900 years old, but some spells, polymorph famously, are significantly older on the order of thousands of years.

Do you give players input on these questions?

The name of Trevyn's player was Steve.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, you asked about what each of us does. I'm telling you what I do.

There's a lot of fantasy fiction out there in which exploring the nature of magic is a large element. I don't typically use D&D for such stories. I don't find D&D's magic system to be well-suited for it, and would typically look for another system. The result is that my games usually have relatively few house rules.

I didn’t intend to suggest that there’s anything wrong with not worrying about it.

You may find that's typical of me. I don't try very hard to make D&D, or whatever system, do what I want. If it doesn't do it natively, I find another system to do the job.

What do you do when a player is interested in something the system doesn’t go into much but that is thematically appropriate?

No argument there.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Having finished doing my taxes, including having to deal with having sold stock for the first time, I had an idea that wizards basically have to do accounting to learn spells, much less create them.

So, there are natural laws, divine precepts, loopholes, caveats, and addendums, formulae to determine a value that has to be plugged into another formula, all of that. Types of magic are like filing for income in multiple states, which is why so many mages focus on one or two types and keep the rest simple.

And the rules change, and vary, so you can’t just copy a spell and go, you have to figure out the rules it operates under and re-file it under your native/current rules!

Can’t wait for someone to play a mage soon so I can throw this at them.

 

[Umbran]

What do you do when a player is interested in something the system doesn’t go into much but that is thematically appropriate?

I front load that question - I pick what game I'm running based on player input. If the players say that they want to play a game in which they explore and play with the fundamental nature of magic as a major plot element and theme, then I'll pick a game that suits.

If the player is interested in something and doesn't mention it at or before session zero, we can have a conversation, but I can't really promise it'll work out well.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I front load that question - I pick what game I'm running based on player input. If the players say that they want to play a game in which they explore and play with the fundamental nature of magic as a major plot element and theme, then I'll pick a game that suits.

If the player is interested in something and doesn't mention it at or before session zero, we can have a conversation, but I can't really promise it'll work out well.

Huh. I guess it’s just hard for me to imagine a table that wouldn’t want a diverse enough set of things that I need to accommodate a broad spectrum within a campaign.

Of course my own adhd and preference for running very different adventures within a campaign contribute to that.

 

[Umbran]

Huh. I guess it’s just hard for me to imagine a table that wouldn’t want a diverse enough set of things that I need to accommodate a broad spectrum within a campaign.

Yeah, but ,"broad," is not, "anything you can think of after the fact."

Like, if I am playing a fantasy game, and one PC wants to explore creation of technology, and they didn't raise that early on, they are asking something that likely violates expectations all across the setting and character designs. That's not what anyone signed on for at Session Zero.

Of course my own adhd and preference for running very different adventures within a campaign contribute to that.

I don't see this as a question about individual adventures. It seemed to me to be about major themes and elements.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, but ,"broad," is not, "anything you can think of after the fact."

Like, if I am playing a fantasy game, and one PC wants to explore creation of technology, and they didn't raise that early on, they are asking something that likely violates expectations all across the setting and character designs. That's not what anyone signed on for at Session Zero.

Sure, but that isn’t what I’m referencing. I’m talking about two things, and again neither is an attack on how you do things:

1. The ability of players to figure out the story of their PC in play, and for yhe DM to be able to surprise players with circumstances they weren’t expecting, both of which often mean that an adventure might heavily feature something that isn’t otherwise important to the game in general.
I’ve talked about this before whenever D&D heist adventures comes up. I’m not going to play blades in the dark just because I know my Eberron game will end up featuring at least one heist, nor Pendragon or whatever just because I know the BoV Paladin with a gothic romantic flair will be put in the position to try to redeem her order, have people come and want to follow her, and need to participate in a tourney or two, as part of her story arc.


2. The ability to let the mage PC explore the fundamental nature of arcane magic, without making the whole game be about that.

I don't see this as a question about individual adventures. It seemed to me to be about major themes and elements.

It’s about both, because what adventures are likely to pop up has a huge impact on expectations about play for the campaign generally.

 

[Umbran]

2. The ability to let the mage PC explore the fundamental nature of arcane magic, without making the whole game be about that.

Ah. So, here's the bit that gets me - D&D's magic system has many constraints that are plain and visible to the players that constrain what that "fundamental nature" can plausibly be - whatever it is, it must be consistent with the resulting game mechanics. And I've been playing this game for umpteen years, and have seen a bunch, most of which didn't really work very well.

And, then either learning that "fundamental nature" doesn't really change anything, because of that mechanical restriction, or I have to break the mechanics to give them something cool for figuring it out. I am not a proponent of leading the players on exploration that doesn't actually impact things..

I'd just rather do that in a system with fewer constraints, because then doing something interesting with it without being over or under powered is generally easier.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ah. So, here's the bit that gets me - D&D's magic system has many constraints that are plain and visible to the players that constrain what that "fundamental nature" can plausibly be - whatever it is, it must be consistent with the resulting game mechanics. And I've been playing this game for umpteen years, and have seen a bunch, most of which didn't really work very well.

And, then either learning that "fundamental nature" doesn't really change anything, because of that mechanical restriction, or I have to break the mechanics to give them something cool for figuring it out. I am not a proponent of leading the players on exploration that doesn't actually impact things..

I'd just rather do that in a system with fewer constraints, because then doing something interesting with it without being over or under powered is generally easier.

Ah, whereas I am very comfortable making new stuff which sometimes creates new rules exceptions in 5e.

But I’m also happy as a player to explore this stuff without ever gaining a non-standard mechanical benefit.

My Gnomish rogue/mage deals in circles, binding energy, invocation and evocation in the hermetic mysticism tradition, and is researching ley lines, energy transferral, and the ethereal plane (where he believes the ancient Fey went to, in a world where the Feywild is part of the world. I’ve made it very clear to the DM I don’t expect the truth of that situation to match the PC’s expectations, it’s just as fun to have the process lead to new theories)

What effect does that have on the mechanics? Well, it partly explains his custom feat that allows him to basically treat his wizard levels as making him a half-caster, rather than never progressing again unless he takes more wizard levels, but that is also a fix for lacking mechanical structures in the game, and the fact that moving him to the artificer class after the fact would make his abilities partly incongruent with the story thus far. I’m somewhat tempted by the forge adept from exploring Eberron though…

Anyway, point being, he can’t like, regain spell slots by using dispel magic through his “spell eater” blade, even though it would thematically make sense, because we aren’t home brewing that far to accommodate how magic works.

I get why you might prefer to play or run for such a PC in a campaign using a system that more directly accommodates his story elements, but I’d rather play him in the campaign with the story premises I built him for, that also suits everyone else at the table, and works “well enough” for all of our character types and the story elements and threads the DM plans on putting before us.

 

[Umbran]

Ah, whereas I am very comfortable making new stuff which sometimes creates new rules exceptions in 5e.

It isn't about "comfort". I'm comfortable doing so. I just don't want to, when there's better systems to do it in. Like, if tree falls in my yard, I'm comfortable using a hand saw to take it apart, but I don't want to do that when I can use a chainsaw, which is better designed for the purpose.

But I’m also happy as a player to explore this stuff without ever gaining a non-standard mechanical benefit.

If it has no mechanical impact, the GM doesn't need to be involved. I encourage my players to make up setting information, so long as it has no mechanical impact.