Your Magical Preferences

[crazy_monkey1956]

In my current campaign (3.5) and setting, views on magic vary by culture.

Most human wizards believe magic is a tool and use it and study it like a science.

Most elves believe it is the spiritual energy of life and revere it like humans revere deities.

Both beliefs have a bit of truth to them in the context of the metaphysics of the setting.

Regardless, in most of my campaigns I generally prefer a low magic world with high magic PCs, giving the PCs and story a heroic feel.

 

[Gilladian]

My next campaign will be an E6 rules game. I like magic that has strict limitations, yet it completely replaces technology. I think that's the ONLY way to achieve a deep, long-lasting DnD-style history for a world.

I like the idea of arcane and divine being separate; one comes from dealings and promises with outsiders/gods, the other comes from internal understanding and personal power. I don't like psionics in my fantasy - I'll save it for my forays into scifi (such as gamma world).

I love Vancian magic. I've tried various spell point systems and they always make mages/wizards too powerful. Fire and forget WORKS.

In my main campaign world technology doesn't work, past a certain point. Magic does. People can almost understand magic, the way people today can almost understand quantum physics. They use it, they get stuff from it, and they have a certain ability to repeat their successes. That's as far as they can go, really.

PCs certainly have a LOT more exposure to magic than ordinary folks, who probably see 3-5 spells cast per year in their lives, and maybe 5-10 magic items. NPCs tend to think of magic as wondrous, strange and dangerous. PCs rarely do; they see enough of it that the wondrous wears off after a while. That's too bad, but I guess inevitable.

Other campaigns (like the Ptolus one I'm running now) have different suppositions, and thus a totally different feel.

 

[Stormonu]

I generally prefer different magic types (arcane, primal, divine, psionic, shadow, etc.) with a slighly faustian bend (the more powerful the magic, the more dangerous it is to use it, drawbacks of some sort are common) and it is rare (only a select few are born with the ability or dedication to learn/use magical abilities).

I prefer that it's more common among adventurers because they are rare individuals themselves - but it's use is generally beyond 90% or more of the populace.

Also, I'm not fond of vancian magic, but I don't like spell point systems much either. I actually prefer a system where you have to "build up" the power for a spell, somewhat like the system I read in Sovereign Stone.

Story-wise, I tend to change up how magic is viewed and the theories behind how it works.

 

[Lanefan]

I tend to prefer differing magic sources (arcane, divine, sonic [Bardic], etc.) and I've dreamed up a sort of underlying physics as to how they work that my scientific brain can live with.

I used a spell point system for ages, but recently I've become a real fan of 3e-Sorcerer-style spontaneous casting, limited only by slots per spell level. Pre-memorization is just annoying on so many levels...

But to me, the over-riding consideration about magic is that I want it to be high risk as well as high reward. Magic is unstable. Breaking an enchanted item - and they do break, just like non-enchanted things do - risks it going *boom*. Spells don't always go exactly where you aim them - that's what the roll to hit is for. Interrupting a spell being cast might send the summoned energy into a wild surge, on which anything can happen. And so forth.

I have maintained for years that the #1 reason why magic got further and further out of hand with each passing edition is the designers kept taking more of the risk out of it.

Lan-"he of the +2 wizardslayer longsword"-efan

 

[Aus_Snow]

Do you prefer magic that is distinctly delineated by source (i.e., arcane vs. divine vs. psionic), or do you prefer singular unified magic systems?

Sauce matters.

Do you prefer Vancian magic or some other spellcasting method?

Overall? Others. But then, I've never played in a game using actual "Vancian" magic, just pseudo-Vancian "D&Desque" magic at times.

Is magic prevalent or rare? Is it easily accessible to learn or is it a painstaking enterprise? Is it earth-shattering or subtle? Is it benign or malignant? Is magic metaphysically explainable or is it utterly mysterious? Is magic treated as a technological tool or as a chaotic force? How do magic-users view magic? How do non-magic-users view magic? Or perhaps it falls somewhere between all these or in other aspects that I did not include.

Rare for the most part, more often painstaking, both earth-shattering and subtle (though not always at the same time), benign and/or malignant, infrequently explicable and therefore overwhelmingly mysterious, both a tool and a "chaotic" (?) force - among other things, viewed by magi in as many different ways as the natural world - along with all its phenomena - is by the various thinkers and explorers throughout our global history (and then some), viewed by "the uninitiated" in at least as many ways, and yes, very much so, respectively.


Also, I'll second the "risk and reward" bit, from the post above. Pretty much my feelings, too.

 

[S'mon]

Magic is ubiquitous in the world, like electromagnetism or radiation, everything has magic. Some things are more magical than others, whether they're a well-crafted sword or a fireball wand.

Magic follows the ley-lines, is concentrated in some areas, dead or reduced in a few others.

Some wizards talk about the "electro-magnetic-magic Flux".

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Here's how I like my magic: Vancian, dangerous, mysterious, and unpredictable. Common enough to be encountered regularly by adventurers, rare enough to engender both fear and wonder in everyone else. Hatred, fear, or paranoia about spellcasters is normal in less educated places.

 

[Lord Captian Tobacco]

No Second Amendment right for spell casters

One odd point I never hear enough of is how the non-magic wielding population is supposed to deal with it. We all know that the mage is the best choice to be the brewer because of the game mechanics but what about the more psychological and emotional issues.

Consider the druid who gives up on adventuring to have the BEST grape growing fields in the kingdom.
Or the ease in which a fallow field can be cleared with a ‘burning hands’ spell.

But what of the mundane? Even if magic is not seen as heathen based or demonic it can defiantly be a source of concern for any community.

Today, we insist that no one has the right to possess a fully automatic weapon in their home, much less a grenade launcher or mortar. Why should a wizard, not bound to the king or constabulary force, be allowed to retain his spell book? Imagine the mayhem which can result when the wiz uses Magic Missile on that dog that dumps on his lawn. What about the use of a Charm Person spell on that good looking ward of the local Baron? The Baron, himself? Or the judge? Or the use of Div spells to cheat at cards?

Don’t get me started on the ones with a necromantic bent.

Maybe public peace laws require books be bound and sealed with wax the way a sword is required to be ‘tied’ in a town. Maybe the wands are ‘secured’ with the bailiff.

How would you feel living next to a crazy old coot who could level your barn if you annoy him?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Since that has more to do with how a world works on a social level, all that stuff is best left to the DMs, so the games don't really address that kind of thing unless its part of a campaign setting.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Today, we insist that no one has the right to possess a fully automatic weapon in their home, much less a grenade launcher or mortar. Why should a wizard, not bound to the king or constabulary force, be allowed to retain his spell book? Imagine the mayhem which can result when the wiz uses Magic Missile on that dog that dumps on his lawn. What about the use of a Charm Person spell on that good looking ward of the local Baron? The Baron, himself? Or the judge? Or the use of Div spells to cheat at cards?

Firstly, yes, you can legally own a fully automatic weapon in this country. It requires a background check and a $200 a year licence. (It may be higher now, its been some years since I had any reason to ask.)

As for taking spell caster's spell books away? They'd go live somewhere else rather than submit to that. So the only Wizards around would be criminals. Not a very bright way to run a kingdom. (Unless there were also Wizards who worked for the kingdom directly who could keep theirs.)

And that doesn't address Divine Magic.