Will the Magic System be shown the door?

[GreatLemur]

I'd like to point out the (admittedly obvious) truth between the extremes of opinion, here: Yes, resource management can be fun. No, it is not fun for everybody.

Personally, I'm hoping that we'll see a variety of balanced magic systems that all refer to the same pool of spells or effects. (Kind of like the way prepared, spontaneous, arcane, and divine casters all use different subsets of one big spell catalog now, obviously. I just want more magic systems with better modularity than, say, things like invocations and such have now.)

So in other words, you want to play CHAMPIONS. Or some bastardization of TALISLANTA.

I'd like some elements of those games, certainly. D&D could do a lot worse than to steal from the Hero System's character generation or Talislanta's magic system.

A Spellcaster shouldn't have to throw darts to be effective. Not when it's a simple matter to say:

Granted Power - Eldritch Dart: A spellcaster may throw a bolt of magic energy that does 1d4 damage on a successful hit.

There. Now you're effective, and you actually seem like a spellcaster. Not a guy with a crossbow who can pull one decent magical effect a day out of his ass.

That sums it up pretty nicely (and reminds me a lot of this great Monte Cook article). It's not a lack of mechanical power that makes Vancian magic grate so badly (oh, most definitely not!); it's just the weird idea of magical capability being divided every morning into big, pre-set lumps that leave nothing behind once they're expended.

Hell, make wands and staves a bit more iconic would help (i.e. re-useable).

Yeah, I've gotta say, I really like the role I've seen wands taking in computer RPGs. Instead of being charged with several uses of a powerful spell, they're basically just ranged weapons that only spellcasters can use. Obviously, you can add in some more mechanics and flavor to make them more interesting, but power-wise, and role-wise, they're basically the same thing as the D&D Wizard's crossbow. Only, you know, more wizardy.

Books could be filled with new magic skills, magic and psuedo-magic feats, and prestige classes. I just hope they never go to a purely modular system like Elements of magic. I have players who barely understand clearly outlined and very specific spells. God help me if they actually have to craft spells on the fly or on their own

Yeah, that's a point I cannot ignore, as much as I'd love a modular, point-based magic system. Just like resource management, fiddling around with points ain't for everyone. But "spend one more point to make this touch spell short-ranged" and "one point per additional die or damage" can't be too bad, can it? Right? Right?

Has anyone ever tried to design a "Per Encounter" approach to D&D magic?

Maybe something like using the spell point variant from UA, but characters only have a quarter of the amount of points, but can refresh them as a full round action that provokes an AoO or something?

I dunno if I really need them to recharge all their power, and certainly not in the middle of a fight. What if they used the regular amount of spell points (or maybe less, for balance purposes), and were able to regain either a quarter or half of their maximum by resting for an hour? I don't mind the party having to take a break, as long as they're not fleeing back to the inn or bedding down for the night in the lich king's tomb.

Heck, I would be fine if all Wizard spells were castable at will (with significant rebalancing, of course), but the most powerful ones simply had very, very long casting times (e.g. one day to cast the GATE spell, one month to cast X...).

For a while, I've been thinking about a system where all spells are castable at will, but they all require long casting times, unbroken concentration, and access to a spell book. Which would mean, of course, no more casting in the middle of combat. Instead, casters could grant themselves some kind of "toss minor energy bolts at will" kind of buff before any fight begins. And, of course, there'd be a hard, level-based limit on how many such buffs a caster could maintain at a given time.

Please excuse my absurdly long post, folks.

 

[howandwhy99]

My problem with Per Encounter magic systems is they balance magic per combat. Is every spell only a different kind of gun? Magic is much more than that. It is not just for combat. While the majority of spells in D&D are balanced by level according to utility in combat, magic doesn't begin and end there. How are Per Encounter spells resource managed when outside of it? Are encounters really so discrete?

Constant magic systems, meaning no points, vancian, or per whatevers, tend to be variations of the fighter class for me. Instead of shooting arrows, the M-U shoots unlimited spells. They are no longer the battlefield canons of shock and awe; they are nifty fighters with weapons unbreakable and arrows unlimited. Even non-casters have resource management of a sort. In the end, the resulting per action power is on par with everyone else. Where's the real difference?

Balancing systems need to take into account more than just combat. Spells are used throughout play and if they are to be resources like so many other things in the game, they will need replenishing. Per day is as intuitive a break as any because of normal sleep break rhythms. Per hour and you'll need constant and explicit timekeeping. Per week and... well they do include per week on occasion. That's not so bad.

 

[GreatLemur]

My problem with Per Encounter magic systems is they balance magic per combat. Is every spell only a different kind of gun? Magic is much more than that. It is not just for combat. While the majority of spells in D&D are balanced by level according to utility in combat, magic doesn't begin and end there. How are Per Encounter spells resource managed when outside of it? Are encounters really so discrete?

This is a good point. "Per encounter" suggests that, as long as you aren't in a fight (and thus, presumably, have the time to recharge yourself repeatedly), you have effectively unlimited use of your abilities. That's not really a problem with a very short list of powers, like the Warlock's invocations, but in spellcasters with a more Wizard-like repetoire, it's easy to see how unlimited non-combat casting would make them into perfect toolboxes, able to solve a ridiculous variety of problems with little or no help from the rest of the party.

I'm not sure that long casting times couldn't be used to painlessly and logically avoid this problem, but I do agree that many groups would effectively ignore them outside of combat, for fear that acknowledging them would require serious time-keeping. Hmmmm...

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'd rather not HAVE to take an enemy down in one shot, because he's going to be fully healed and resourced if he escaped combat for 30 minutes. If I attack the lich/evil cleric/fighter, and I know I've hurt him bad, and he gets away, I want to be able to pursue him, chase him, and finish him off. I don't want to have to go through that again if he gets to safety for a breather. Per day, I can do that if I can; per encounter, he's ready to go, so am I, and we do the same thing all over again.

So you want to ban monsters with regeneration, fast healing and useable at will abilities?

 

[Henry]

So you want to ban monsters with regeneration, fast healing and useable at will abilities?

If they were the ONLY opponents in a game, then sure! As part of the plethora that is D&D, I don't mind them, because they pose different problems. But if every opponent had say Fast Healing 15 and At-will abilties, I'd balk.

 

[Psion]

I'd like some elements of those games, certainly. D&D could do a lot worse than to steal from the Hero System's character generation or Talislanta's magic system.

I used to run a Fantasy Hero game. It was pretty cool.

But when it comes down to it, there's a reason we are playing D&D now and not FH.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I'd like to point out the (admittedly obvious) truth between the extremes of opinion, here: Yes, resource management can be fun. No, it is not fun for everybody.

Personally, I'm hoping that we'll see a variety of balanced magic systems that all refer to the same pool of spells or effects. (Kind of like the way prepared, spontaneous, arcane, and divine casters all use different subsets of one big spell catalog now, obviously. I just want more magic systems with better modularity than, say, things like invocations and such have now.)

I'd like some elements of those games, certainly. D&D could do a lot worse than to steal from the Hero System's character generation or Talislanta's magic system.

Bleaugh.

To quote Michaleen Oge Flynn,

"When I want water I'll drink...water. And when I want whiskey, I'll drink whiskey."

That sums it up pretty nicely (and reminds me a lot of this great Monte Cook article). It's not a lack of mechanical power that makes Vancian magic grate so badly (oh, most definitely not!); it's just the weird idea of magical capability being divided every morning into big, pre-set lumps that leave nothing behind once they're expended.

With all due respect to Mr. Cook, there's a (good, solid) system in place with the Jack Vance inspired magic rules for D&D. I've seen and heard just about every variant in the book and so far all I've seen is stuff that puts magic-users way out of whack powerwise. Then attempts to fix it that ridiculously overcorrect in the other direction. WARHAMMER FANTASY ROLEPLAY has a fine magic system - for WARHAMMER. I'm sure you could build a magic system (use the character generation system) from the CHAMPIONS rules - for use in CHAMPIONS.

Once you strip away one D&D fundamental, why stop there? Why classes - who's the DM to tell me my paladin can't pick pockets? Why hit points - why not an injury table? Why levels? Why STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA? Why gold? Why ...

There are a great many things I know I can't change back about D&D. God knows if I was calling the shots a great majority of you folks would be mighty unhappy with me. But I tell you what - and you can roll your eyes and say "WHATEVER, grandpa" or "There he goes AGAIN" but you yank out too much more and no, it won't be D&D any more.

 

[howandwhy99]

There are a great many things I know I can't change back about D&D. God knows if I was calling the shots a great majority of you folks would be mighty unhappy with me. But I tell you what - and you can roll your eyes and say "WHATEVER, grandpa" or "There he goes AGAIN" but you yank out too much more and no, it won't be D&D any more.[/font]

"Whatever Grandpa." Some of us realize what D20 is. And play OD&D.

 

[GreatLemur]

There are a great many things I know I can't change back about D&D. God knows if I was calling the shots a great majority of you folks would be mighty unhappy with me. But I tell you what - and you can roll your eyes and say "WHATEVER, grandpa" or "There he goes AGAIN" but you yank out too much more and no, it won't be D&D any more.

"Love it or leave it" arguements haven't got any traction with me. There are things I like about D&D/d20, and things I don't. I want to keep the things I like, and I want to see the things I don't like fixed. I don't have any sentimental attachment to the game as an abstract concept, a brand name, or a badge of gamer identity. To me, it's a system, one which can and should be altered and tweaked for different kinds of games.

I'm not concerned about 4E becoming "not D&D", because traditional D&D-style fantasy hasn't really been my thing for a long time. Certainly, I think traditional trapfind-your-way-through-the-dungeon-and-kill-some-kobolds-and-a-beholder campaigns should be supported; I just want more and more flexible options for different kinds of setting and play styles. 3E has done an admirable job of this, and the OGL has done even more. But there's always room for more options and more streamlining, and 4E looks like a great opportunity for such improvements.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

An encounter is anything that a) you can fail and b) is interesting - ideally for the whole party. Not just a combat, but navigating dangerous terrain, negotiating passage with a powerful baron, exploring a trapped tomb, or sneaking through enemy territory.

The reason per-encounter works is because non-encounter events aren't worth playing out in the first place. They are the 'grind' that drags down the gaming and roleplaying experience.

Anything that is either trivial or uninteresting is not an encounter and should be narrated by the players. An untrapped door, made of a breakable material, with no time pressure? This is something that WILL be solved if the party decides to, whether the PCs have limited or unlimited resources - so skip it. A small battle against weak opponents who can't call for backup or escape? The PCs will win - so skip it. An murder mystery when the characters have speak with dead? Roleplay the speaking if it's either fun or interesting (or if the victim can only describe, rather than identify, his killer), but it's not an encounter and has no reason to consume resources.

My policy is to classify every event as one of four types:

ENCOUNTERS
Anything where you need to roll dice to resolve the outcome is an encounter. No encounter should be boring or trivial. Thus, every encounter should include a meaningful risk of failure of some type, and should be important to the adventure. Most sessions should have one or two encounters at the most, because each encounter should be memorable and exciting for all the players (and each one likely takes a while to resolve). The GM sets the stage, and the dice, tactics and expenditure of resources determine the outcome.

ROLEPLAYING EVENTS
These are events where there's no possibility of meaningful failure, but which can still be fun to roleplay out. This includes intra-party dialogue, conversing with friendly NPCs, or trading banter with an antagonist who is separated from the party by some barrier neither side can cross. Characters' special abilities are almost always useless in this type of event, so their use doesn't matter one way or another. The GM narrates the scene, and the players determine their dialogue. The outcome is either never in doubt or determined by the course of the conversation.

NARRATED EVENTS
These are events that do not involve a chance of failure, an NPC, or meaningful dialogue among PCs, but which are still either fun or important to know about. This includes wiping out mook enemies who are no threat to the PCs, navigating a non-dangerous but potentially interesting environment, foiling the 'dangers' of a lower-level wilderness area or dungeon, researching in a vast library, casting non-encounter spells like scry, druids turning into birds and scouting the area, and the party returning to the city in wealth and glory after a successful adventure. If a PC's special ability would be useful or interesting, that PC's player is free to describe how the characer used his abilities. The GM narrates some, the players narrate some; the outcome is never in doubt.

SKIPPED EVENTS
These are events that, frankly, are boring. They just happen in the background; special abilities are either used or not.

If a scene would not appear in an adventure movie or novel, it's skipped. If it would be covered briefly (often to demonstrate a character's prowess), it's narrated. If it's dialogue, it's roleplayed. If it's a memorable, climacting scene, it's an encounter.