Worlds of Design: How Lethal is Your Magic?

The lethality of a RPG's spell system has repercussions beyond combat.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Meet the Spellslingers​

I recently read the novel Spellslinger (and successors) by Sebastian de Castell. In this story novice spellcasters (adolescents about to take the “tests”) can kill one or more people with magic quickly and easily, provided they are not afraid or in pain. And they have lots of spells. Not surprisingly, their “tribe” tends to dominate in international affairs.

This lethality of novice/low level magic users is not what I’m used to from older versions of Dungeons & Dragons, where they’re not exactly harmless, but not very dangerous. Magic missile can sometimes kill an ordinary person, but most low-level spells do little damage. That changes drastically around fifth level, when “artillery spells” (e.g., fireball, lightning bolt) are added to the mix. Ordinary people, and some adventurers, fail to survive one such blast. The two spells also become important in small battles (in large battles, they have much less effect barring “unlimited ammo” such as a fully charged wand).

How does that influence the view of NPCs in the campaign world and, by proxy, the game overall?

What Makes a Spell Lethal?​

We should always keep in mind that spells can benefit society without affecting combat, but lethal spells are, well, deadly. Lethality must include consideration of how fast it happens, and how easily a spell is nullified by attacks, and other conditions. This varies greatly from one rule set to another. Even within different editions of D&D, tactics have changed when available spell lists were modified from one edition to another. If you want to have characters to choose non-violent means of settling disagreements in an RPG, you might need to reduce the lethality of magic.

Spells Grouped by Lethality​

Thinking about all of this, I decided to try to group spells according to their uses, in the glaring light of lethality. Someone has surely thought about this at much greater length than I have, and categorized spells in terms of what they do for their society as well as for their wielders, but here are my categories:

• Battle. Here we have spells that make a difference in full-scale battles (as opposed to the skirmishes typical of FRPGs). These might include information gathering/reconnaissance spells, mass area of effect spells including the proverbial fireball, spells that obscure vision, and many others. Many of the old D&D spells are of this type, perhaps not surprising insofar as D&D derives from the Chainmail miniatures battle rules. These spells will sometimes be lethal, though spells that assist the general in some way (such as the obscuration spells) may be more common than the spells that kill.
• Buffs. These are spells that help temporarily improve the capability of someone. This needn’t be only in combat terms of course. A spell that gives you increased stamina when you’re on a long walking trip would be very welcome. This kind of spell could lead to lethality depending on what the buffer is and how it’s used, but there’s no lethality inherent in the category.
• Communication. These are spells that help a governor or the noble ruler of a domain, whether the domain is a town or a castle or an entire county or country. Crystal ball spells might fall into this category. Communication spells might make a big difference, compared with the slow communication of historical settings.
• Convenience. These spells that take care of everyday chores, like the enchanted mop mopping the floor from Sorcerer’s Apprentice. There is no lethality at all in this kind of spell (other than pure accident, as in drowning!).
• Skirmish. These are the spells that are often used in skirmishes that occur during RPG adventures. Some of these will be lethal. But I think of web and stinking cloud, in particular, big influences that are rarely lethal.
• Other Categories. Information Gathering could be a category, though such spells are included in the other categories. And there are others such as Transformational spells. But I wanted to focus on lethality.

GM’s can affect lethality by tweaking how spells work, their frequency, and their accessibility (e.g. banning fireball and lightning bolt or interpreting spell descriptions in less lethal ways). But the rule set will normally have greater influence.

Why This Matters​

Lethality is an abstraction, but the longer magic wielders have been around in the world, the more likely their presence will influence how people treat spells. If any arcane caster can eventually gain access to fireball or lightning bolt, every caster, novice or otherwise, might be treated with more or less respect according to their levels of lethality. If magic is wild and unknown, where spell lists and acquisition of spells are a mystery, casters might be broadly grouped into one of the above types (“hedge wizards” for convenience, battlecasters for battle spells, etc.), which will undoubtedly affect how they interact with society at large. And of course, once those assumptions are in place, people will act accordingly, targeting battlecasters out of fear of what they might do, or asking hedge wizards for help assuming that all casters can communicate across distances.

What’s unlikely in games like Dungeons & Dragons with codified spell systems is that anyone is surprised when someone casts a spell. Understanding a spell system as a player and as a character are different things, and the interplay of the two can spell the difference between every archer aiming for the guy in robes … or running in fear as soon as he casts magic missile.

Your Turn: How much do your societies understand the lethality of magic in your game setting?

 

[Ramaster]

Interesting article and interesting take.

I distinctly remember changing my view of the Grisha once they showed just how lethal they were in combat while watching Shadow and Bone (there's a kind of Grisha who can stop people's hearts basically at will), so this is definitely a very big consideration while worldbuilding.

As always, the article could've used another editing pass: "GM’s can affect lethality(...)"

Another thing that came to my mind recently is to keep very much in mind the style of D&D that this particular author most likely grew up playing (original D&D and their "next of kin"). It really helps put things into perspective.

 

[deadman1204]

I think magic should definately be more lethal. However you have the video game balance idea that pervades modern dnd. Everyone should be equal. Someone holding a knife should have roughly the same dps output as a wizard.
Thus magic can't really be as lethal as it should, because what about those without it?

Add to this that later editions, but especially 5th are designed for you to win. Its actually pretty hard to die in 5th ed compared to older editions. The dm has to intentionally want to kill you. If magic was more lethal - players would die. however 5th ed is designed to tell the story of how the players win. Victory is a foregone conclusion.

 

[GMMichael]

Spells by Lethality: interesting concept. I'd first want to call lethality either:
1) the amount of disruption of living systems in a human-sized animal, or
2) the amount of health/hit point loss caused per time unit.
Since (2) is easier to measure, I'd set up some categories for (1): Maximum, Partial, Minimum, and None/Incidental. A society is going to be concerned with how frequently each category comes up, and react accordingly (assuming a non-young-adult setting). So, Maximum spells will be banned by international treaty. Partial lethality spells that can appear frequently (like, I don't know, "guns") would either be limited by permit or banned from the peasantry. Minimum lethality spells, as well as the Incidentals, are free to all, because a baseline level of death is good for the economy (lookin' at you, Milton).

As Maximum or Partial lethality spells become more common or accessible, governments, adventuring parties, and BBEGs all spring into action to return the status quo.

 

[Lord Shark]

As always, the article could've used another editing pass: "GM’s can affect lethality(...)"

Also getting Sebastien de Castell's name wrong. (His Spellslinger and Greatcoats series are well worth reading, by the way.)

 

[Stormonu]

In my main homebrew, spellcasters are about 1 person in a hundred. Most people, however, understand how deadly even a small magic cantrip can be. Many communities have restrictions or bans on public (and sometimes private) magic use - I'd say on the level that a US citizen could expect when toting around a handgun.

The lynching of wizards, sorcerers and warlocks is not unheard of in the land. On the other side of the spectrum, there are some places where spellcasting is not only expected and encouraged, only those with the ability to cast spells are put into places of authority. Non-evil clerics certainly have a better reputation, but can still induce fear or suffer backlash. Some places have dealt with significant violence or oppression from spellcasters in the past (or present) and take a dim view to any potential spellcaster in their midst. Luckily for PCs, most starting places are at least tolerant of spellcasters.

 

[Voadam]

I like having a mix of casting types so there is some known and unknown going on with casters.

Wizards are different from sorcerers and warlocks and bards who are different from druids who are different from clerics. Within those broad classes there are different options so different subclasses and feat techniques that can make casters different. Then NPC caster statblocks doing different magical things for different hidden trainings or whatever.

And that is just the default 5e options and flavor.

So people might generally fear fireballs and eldritch blasts but there is a lot of variety and potential for knowledge and attitudes to vary.

 

[Koloth]

One also has to be aware of possible interactions of spells with things in the environment. Older versions(and maybe current) of the web spell created webs that were flammable. Casting one in a tavern to get control of the party's barbarian who decided now was a good time to rage, could well burn the whole place down if the tavern had a fireplace with fire. Given that fantasy taverns may well not comply with modern standards of fire resistance and number of exits, the death toll could be fairly high. More if the burning tavern catches other buildings on fire. "Our party now has the death sentence in twelve kingdoms due to accidental destruction of towns."

Also, if magic is rare, someone that hasn't seen a spell may decide the caster is some type of demon and react accordingly.

 

[Minigiant]

One of my settings has low level lethal magic.

But tech and magic items are cheaper.

Spellcasters are for moments of unpredictability and untraceable funding. Hence why they are common in adventuring parties, hit squads, and kill teams.

 

[Krachek]

Commoners, basic soldier, basic criminal see magic with a mix of fear and doubt. Usually they never have seen magic at work.

Those who know about magic are professionals and elites of the society.

And for lethality I always have to remind myself that nobody know the level of an npc or monster they face.
Same for a wizard, until you start a fight, you can only guess what your opponent is capable of.
Only PCs meet balanced encounters or have nice hint from the DM that the fight is not for them.
The rest of the word go to fight blindly about the strength of their opponents.