Why does magic work the way it works?

[diaglo]

In the D&D game world...

Is creating a new spell an act as simple as just "researching" it? If so, why aren't there spells for every little imaginable situation? If not, what does it take to create a new spell?

price. research. knowledgeable people. many reasons.

Why is there no iceball, lightningball, sonicball, or acidball spell? (Like fireball.)

there are.

Why isn't there a 1st-level "no-save, just die" spell?

there is.

Why are some spells only divine, or only arcane, while some are both?

i don't know you tell me. in the OD&D i play.. research is possible for all spellcasting classes.

Why are some spells different levels depending on being divine or arcane?

they take a higher level of training.. an epiphany to understand. or they take more out of the caster. or...

Why is the list of summonable monsters not mirror images (celestial X and fiendish X)?

b/c WotC said say

Why does magic in your D&D game world work the way it is described in the rule books?

b/c OD&D(1974) rocks Da Houzzz.

 

[der_kluge]

Morrus, Quasqueton is asking too many questions. It's time for the "surgery".

 

[Timeboxer]

The way I play it in my Eberron game is a lot like the way JimAde describes it -- for wizards, spell research isn't spell creation, but spell discovery. Think of an archaeologist digging through an excavation for an artifact, and that is roughly the scope of spell research. It's searching for a formula, or piecing it together out of incomplete research notes, or something similar.

By contrast, artificers are more like engineers. You tell her the specifications of a spell, and she'll try to build it from the ground up, if it's possible. A wizard understands the fireball spell as the series of steps that eventually results in the casting of a fireball; an artificer understands it as a combustive twenty-foot radius detonation of flame. But there are, of course, laws of magic that even the wizards and artificers don't understand.

 

[der_kluge]

I've always kind of viewed magic as programming. And to research a spell, the wizard has to basically go off and write a bunch of code. Memorizing a spell involves memorizing all the code, line by line, and then executing it when you cast the spell.

But this "code" has to still basically follow the laws of the universe, more or less. So, it makes sense that you could have an explosion of fire, but that lightning travels more or less in a straight line. So, those things make sense to me. I just wish they'd get rid of [Force] as a descriptor. That one troubles me, at least for damage spells.

 

[JohnSnow]

FWIW, Castles and Crusades restores an old 1st-level "death spell."

It's called "Sleep." Saving Throw: NONE.

We used it to butcher more than a few lowly goblins and kobolds in our recent campaign.

It only works on low-HD monsters though. But against those, it's VERY effective.

 

[Driddle]

Because the gawds will it to be so.
(shrug) It's not a great answer, but it's what I believe in. Gotta take it on faith.

 

[Quasqueton]

Because spells aren't created. They're found.

Thank you, JimAde, for starting the responses in the manner I was asking.

Overall, I think the issue you're having is you want the D&D magic system to have a higher degree of internal consistency than it has.

I have no issue here. See the next quote:

Um, I think he's asking for an in-mileu reason.

Yes, Psion.

b/c OD&D(1974)...

Sorry, but I'm asking about the current edition of this game.

Morrus, Quasqueton is asking too many questions. It's time for the "surgery".

I think the "surgery" happened over lunch. When I got back from lunch, I remembered I wanted to post this question about why D&D magic is the way it is. I came here and discovered that I had already posted the question.

Spellcasters know trhey can cast spells of different abilities and they have to gain power to master the higher ones. They might not refer to them as first level, but the concept has to be there.

Look at the labels given to atom "parts".

Quasqueton

 

[Psion]

Look at the labels given to atom "parts".

Do I have to be the first one to make the comparison of spell levels to quantum levels of electron shells or nucleons?

In the Lady Despina's Virtue story hour, Sepulchrave (the DM) even went so far as to call spell levels "valences" in-character.

 

[sniffles]

Overall, I think the issue you're having is you want the D&D magic system to have a higher degree of internal consistency than it has. D&D magic wasn't designed with a blueprint from the start...it's more like a huge house that was built one room at a time, often by different builders, often with little regard for how one room looks compared to the rooms next to it.

I think the lack of internal consistency is due to the fact that, contrary to what JimAde postulates, spells were created, by a lot of different people at different times. Otherwise, why not have just one 'fire' spell and then just add adjustments to it to create fireballs, fire orbs, continual flames, produce flame, etc.? It's because somewhere one mage said, "Gee, wouldn't it be cool to have a spell that shoots a jet of flame out of my hand", and somewhere else a hundred years later another mage who'd never heard of the first mage said, "Gee, wouldn't it be cool to have a spell that makes an orb of flame I can lob?"

I actually like the lack of consistency - it makes the game more flavorful. If every class could get the same spell at the same class level, or every list like the 'summon' lists were basically mirrors, things would seem pretty homogenous to me. There's already too much overlap on the spell lists for my taste - I wish sorcerers had their own list, and druids didn't have so many cleric spells. But then of course the spell section of the PHB would be enormous.

 

[JimAde]

Do I have to be the first one to make the comparison of spell levels to quantum levels of electron shells or nucleons?

In the Lady Despina's Virtue story hour, Sepulchrave (the DM) even went so far as to call spell levels "valences" in-character.

Does that make it "Valencian magic"?

Or is that oranges?