I realize that "realism" and "magic" are hard concepts to put together, but, I think that a great many magic systems, the D&D one included, are just so ridiculously powerful that the society the game illustrates does not accurately reflect the impact that magical power that magnitude would actually have.
This is especially evident in combat-- who wants a sword when some wizard can snap his fingers and blow up half the battlefield? So, I've tried to re-envision how the battlefield might look, trying to keep the "medieval" character to it.
Here are some of my thoughts:
Magic needs to be slow. If you can just snap your fingers and KABOOM, why even send infantry at all? These mages are kind of like artillery, they're quite powerful, but useless until they're in position and ready. You'd need front lines of infantry in order to hold back the enemy's charge.
The traditional spellcaster archetype of being powerful but very weak doesn't seem to necessarily work either. Perhaps some schools of magic focus entirely on more subtle but useful combat skills, making them more like elite troops than artillery-- mages who use their spells to enhance their speed and dexterity rather than any overt attack, and then explode onto the battlefield and cut down the common troops of the enemy with matrix-style moves.
Maybe there IS magic that can blow up the whole battlefield, but it may have a stigma. This is like chemical weapons after WWI, or nuclear weapons in the modern age: if you use it, they'll use it too, so conflicts tend to be fought without it-- even though it's there. Of course, this adds the element of what happens when some crazy with nothing to lose gets hold of some of this stuff-- the deterrence value is out the window.
Just a few random thoughts!
Well, what I'm doing with magic (as I convert my world over to the WoD system) is more or less removing all of the completely direct offensive spells and some of the worst of the non-offensive ones. If you want "realistic" magic, you could do it like this, but you don't necessarily have to make magic slow. If you did, you'd have to seriously rework the basic ways that spells function (a four hour ritual for one hour of dispellable, not 100% reliable invisibility isn't going to be all that appealing, for example, unless the solutions to beating said invisibility are a much greater pain to accomplish).
Your best bet for entertaining, easy magic is probably to just toss the spells like fireball and all of the other ones that can be dropped on someone for this much or that much damage, and make everything else both harder to learn and more painful to use. Magic in the range of power from Prestidigitation to Bull's Strength to Unseen Servant to Haste might not have any major effects (Haste might warrant some quicker aging of the user like in 2e) on the wielder, but stopping time for even ten seconds could do some serious damage. The effects on the wielder should vary from each spell type to the next, but generally you should find it easy to determine which ones should cause damage to the body, and which should cause damage to the mind/soul.
A suggestion of mine (most of my suggestions happen to be the same thing I'm doing with magic) is that the only real elemental/direct damage spells available should require that you use sources that are nearby. Examples of this could be a sorcerer using a bonfire to make a snake of fire dance about his enemies, or a witch using a snowstorm to quickly encase a monster in mounds of freezing snow and ice.
The thing with spellcasters having powerful spells but being otherwise weak seems to me to be mainly a problem with the d20 system. You can't really give most casters a decent base combat capability without making them way more appealing than any non-caster. Some systems tend to fix this problem, while others won't.
Well, I think magic is a part of D&D so much that you can't really change it at this point. First off, look at the number of commoners and warriors in a city compared to the number of fighters and paladins; likewise, you're going to have even less spellcasters.
I do like the idea of making magic take a little longer to cast; if things were all 1 round actions (like summon monster, they don't trigger until the start of your next round, giving your opponents a round to disrupt you). But, a fireball from a 10th level wizard will deal 10d6 damage to everyone in a 20 ft. radius, while a 10th level fighter may be doing around 2d6+20 damage to everyone within reach (whirlwind or great cleave). The 10th level wizard will have 12 or so spells at their highest damage cap, but the fighter will have until they run out.
If you want to compare nukes to wizards, then forces will employ counter-spell wizards to keep the opponent's wizards from destroying their forces. Additionally, combat would not have evolved massive army on army battles without such wizards, because packing as many people as you can into a 20 ft. radius is just bad.
You can also limit things a little by changing soft cover (people) to apply a bonus on reflex saves vs. area effects (currently it doesn't). This way, a fireball going off in the center of a group of people will fry those on the inside, but those on the outside will be shielded a bit.
Or you can treat units of enemies as single, swarm-like creatures.
D&D has too many inconsistencies. Why do you think it's such good material of webcomics?
My suggestion is to remove damaging spells. Chuck 'em. I did that with the primary caster in my Ah'rem (I bet no one remembers that) setting, figuring that most spellcasters that exist make their living off of using spells like appliances. The only people who got direct damage from magic were specially trained mages who had to go around with their head shaved and tattooed (plus their damage wasn't mechanically all that high).
It's not too hard to come up with a reason why damaging magic is so hard to come by: it's just hard. The subtle magics are just plain easier to pull off, probably because they do less, while creating a lightening bolt is the work of a fricken god!
Another way is to say that the higher the damage the higher the chance of collateral damage to the caster. Yeah, lob that fireball. It only has a 50% chance of blowing up before it gets out of range. And you aren't really creating that lightening bolt, you're just channelling it thought your body from the air. OUCH!
Quote from: sparkletwistI realize that "realism" and "magic" are hard concepts to put together, but, I think that a great many magic systems, the D&D one included, are just so ridiculously powerful that the society the game illustrates does not accurately reflect the impact that magical power that magnitude would actually have.
This is especially evident in combat-- who wants a sword when some wizard can snap his fingers and blow up half the battlefield? So, I've tried to re-envision how the battlefield might look, trying to keep the "medieval" character to it.
Here are some of my thoughts:
Magic needs to be slow. If you can just snap your fingers and KABOOM, why even send infantry at all? These mages are kind of like artillery, they're quite powerful, but useless until they're in position and ready. You'd need front lines of infantry in order to hold back the enemy's charge.
The traditional spellcaster archetype of being powerful but very weak doesn't seem to necessarily work either. Perhaps some schools of magic focus entirely on more subtle but useful combat skills, making them more like elite troops than artillery-- mages who use their spells to enhance their speed and dexterity rather than any overt attack, and then explode onto the battlefield and cut down the common troops of the enemy with matrix-style moves.
Maybe there IS magic that can blow up the whole battlefield, but it may have a stigma. This is like chemical weapons after WWI, or nuclear weapons in the modern age: if you use it, they'll use it too, so conflicts tend to be fought without it-- even though it's there. Of course, this adds the element of what happens when some crazy with nothing to lose gets hold of some of this stuff-- the deterrence value is out the window.
Just a few random thoughts!
i'm trying to address some of this in the system that i am creating. yes, you can still become very powerful, it just takes a lot to get there.
http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?33872
But, ultimately, damaging spells are amongst the weakest spells in a wizard's arsenal. By removing them, you're removing a player's ability to have them, and thus they'll just have better spells.
[blockquote=sparkletwist]I realize that "realism" and "magic" are hard concepts to put together, but, I think that a great many magic systems, the D&D one included, are just so ridiculously powerful that the society the game illustrates does not accurately reflect the impact that magical power that magnitude would actually have.[/blockquote]
Totally agree.
There is actually a lot you can do. I don't run a d20 system, so I have run into a lot of the same issues, and have solved them in many ways.
If you ever read my Celtricia Thread, you'll run into a few entrys around what I call 'the Fireball Idiocy', which deals with exactly what you are describing. That crazy balance that allows every thrid spellcaster to wake up one day and from then on, once a day throw a spell around that can blow up a house.
First off, One needs to look at the story you are creating. My world has magic aplenty, but gaining experience in the spell types is easy at low levels of ability, but ramps very quickly. And takes expererience in a lot of different areas (Firebolt takes Spirit, Air, Fire, and a little artificier, as an example). So magic can be prevalent, but I like having lots of low level magic, rare mid level, and high power stuff nearly legendary. Lots of technicians, few rocket scientists.
[blockquote=Sparkletwist]Magic needs to be slow. If you can just snap your fingers and KABOOM, why even send infantry at all? These mages are kind of like artillery, they're quite powerful, but useless until they're in position and ready. You'd need front lines of infantry in order to hold back the enemy's charge.[/blockquote]
Another way my system combats the very slow rise to pwer is the use of ritual casting, which multiplies the time cast by 10, by using (duh...) rituals, but allows casters a higher spell % success, and also increases the power of the spells they can cast. Ritual magic is, however, a seperate skill to be learned.
A second means of checking this is making the more powerful the spell ability, the longer it takes to recharge. One of the real idiocy's of D20 is that one day, you break a level, and the next you can cast a spell that is more powerful than anything you could cast before, but it doesn't affect anything else you can do, and in fact, you can rest and do it again tomorrow. So by changing the recharge time, you make casters a lot more cagey about casting.
[blockquote=Sparkletwist]mages who use their spells to enhance their speed and dexterity rather than any overt attack, and then explode onto the battlefield and cut down the common troops of the enemy with matrix-style moves.[/blockquote]
Again an idea I approve of and use, though my dumber players still don't use these. My Miston Group is a bright crew, and new that they were about to run into a major combat, so they had the following spells cast before the combat. Both are examples of the slightly more subtle combat magic you are describing, I think.
[spoiler=Spell Name Preparation for Combat,Minor]
Major Sphere Life
Spell Source
Initiative 10
Range touch
Duration 10 min/plev
Save none
Save effect none
Spell Success 15
Area of effect target
Counter
Spirit cost 7
Earth cost 0
Water cost 0
Fire cost 0
Air cost 0
Life cost 4
Death cost 0
Law cost 0
Chaos cost 0
Restorative cost 2
Necromantic cost 0
Mentalist cost 0
Artificer cost 0
Animist cost 0
Total cost 13
Description
This gem prepares a target for combat where they expect tobe injured and need
healing.
For the duration of the spell ,all healing spells(including any spells that remove
damage) that are cast on the target gain a +1 benefit in terms of HP regained, and the
range healed is increased to the upper half of the range.
i.e., if a healing spell that normally retores 2-8 hits of damage the range would
change to 5-8 (+1) for the spell. [/spoiler]
[spoiler=Spell Name Armor of the Art,Minor]
Major Sphere Artificer
Spell Source
Initiative 3
Range 30'
Duration 2 min/plev
Save none
Save effect none
Spell Success 14
Area of effect target
Counter
Spirit cost 6
Earth cost 0
Water cost 0
Fire cost 0
Air cost 2
Life cost 0
Death cost 0
Law cost 0
Chaos cost 0
Restorative cost 0
Necromantic cost 0
Mentalist cost 0
Artificer cost 4
Animist cost 0
Total cost 12
Description
This spell increases the density of the outer layer of clothing or armor the target is
wearing. It makes the air closest to this dense as well.
It increases the target's protection by 2 points per level of the caster for the duration
of the spell.
The caster must be holding a small chunk of adamantine, mithril, Blacksteel or
something like it,minimal cost 75 gp
[/spoiler]
I guess what I am also trying to say is that I believe what you are feeling is felt by many gamers as their games mature into more complex and adult storylines. Overpowering magic and a system that would create that inequity you are trying to get away from are fun early on, but lose their charm as the game (and gamers, hopefully) grow up and want to play more subtle games. Or so I see it.
Quote from: Kap'n XeviatBut, ultimately, damaging spells are amongst the weakest spells in a wizard's arsenal. By removing them, you're removing a player's ability to have them, and thus they'll just have better spells.
If I understood correctly, problem was not the power of PC casters, but the effect of casters, both PC and NPC, on a battlefield. In that case, area-effect spells that deal damage automatically decimate significant parts of any formation. This would make tight formations quite useless and thus chance the concept of war significantly.
Good thoughts... thanks everyone. :)
More fluid formations, that can disperse when there are incoming area effects and concentrate again to resist melee thrusts, is probably another important thing to consider. In this world, heavy, clunky armor is likely to not exist, or, at least, only be ceremonial-- it's much more important to be able to get out of the way.
Quote from: TrollYou can't really give most casters a decent base combat capability without making them way more appealing than any non-caster.
This is true. However, it's ok to me-- fighters are kind of boring to me. So I don't mind the bias. :)
Quote from: sparkletwistMore fluid formations, that can disperse when there are incoming area effects and concentrate again to resist melee thrusts, is probably another important thing to consider. In this world, heavy, clunky armor is likely to not exist, or, at least, only be ceremonial-- it's much more important to be able to get out of the way.
I've always seen the evolution being similar to the real-life evolution of warfare. replace tanks and machine gun nests with casters, and I see something very similar to what world war two would have been had everyone used swords.
I'm going to play devil's advocate and advocate the exact opposite of what you propose.
Rather than change magic to fit conventional warfare, change conventional warfare to fit for magic. Think about how your party took down the lich last week. Your strategy was to do what? Spread out and do your thing? His strategy was pretty much to wait in his lair and wait for you guys to get beat up so when you kicked in his throneroom door he'd have all his spells and you'd be half out of hp.
I mean... what would this look like on a larger scale? Can you imagine, for example, how many "strategic strike forces" of a couple of elite warriors (hell, maybe mages too) would be sent to attack the mages? Not just on the battlefield either. A precursor to war might be sabotage of the kabals and assassinations of powerful casters. Likewise, what would mages themselves do? The minute they show on the battlefield, they're swarmed by eager infantry and a hail of poisoned arrows. The countermeasures for this? Not much if you don't have a line of sight to the archers (firing upwards from behind rocks, as prudent archers do) and can't attack both squads of archers and a horde of screaming infantry all at once. And what's a 20 foot radius? 8 People lead by an incompetent commander. 4 Lead by someone who knows what he's doing. Anyway, things can actually get really complicated... and that might not be such a bad thing. You've got your mage v. mage, fighter v. mage, mage v. fighter tactics and any number of combinations thereof... and don't even get me started on mage guerilla tactics (the one place where they shine disproportionately... to the tune of that one shot rocket propelled grenade against the helicopter... er... fireball against... anyone).
I'm completely reworking the magic system for my setting, to try to take into account some of the stuff that's been mentioned in this thread. I don't have any mechanics for it yet, but here are a few of the ideas that are fairly central.
Everything is Magic / Nothing is magic.
While this does sound like a bit of a contradiction, it is the most important point for my magic system.
Basically Magic is how something that we don't understand can be accomplished. For example, a child sees a juggler for the first time, and to them, it's magic. However we see the same juggler and we know that it's just a trick, and the juggler just has good reflexes and hand-eye coordination. Now the juggler is juggling three flaming torches and a chainsaw with one hand, and we know that he's really good. For his next trick the juggler continues juggling, but now with no hands. All of a sudden it's magic. Perhaps he's just using sleight of hand to create the illusion that he's not using his hands to juggle. Perhaps he's summoned invisible fae to fly around and carry the chainsaws in circles, so that it looks like he's juggling. Perhaps it's something else, either way it's Magic as far as we're concerned.
Because of this there are no "spells". Just tricks, yet everything is still magic.
This system will allow for all sorts of cool effects, available to all characters. A high level swordsman could attack so quickly as part of a whirlwind attack that a cyclone is formed. An Elementalist could have the ground open up to swallow his foe.
Of course this will still change the shape of the battlefield. High level characters can wipe out large armies without breaking a sweat, unless they are stopped by other high level characters.
Hope that helps :)
QuoteThis is true. However, it's ok to me-- fighters are kind of boring to me. So I don't mind the bias.
That's fine, but you may have to consider the impact on people who like fighters. Unless you've got a specialized group, I don't think everyone is going to enjoy playing something that can do what the fighter can and better much easier than the fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin/etc. can itself. You might think it's ok since you don't really have much interest in them to start with, but if one player decides he doesn't want to use lots of magic and just picks a normal fighter,
he is going to be the bored one when the altered wizard steps up and does the same thing he should do several times better, using a few low-level spells to do so. If you want to change casters in such a way, what you should consider most is whether or not you just made non-casters obsolete.
Magic in D&D in general was really made to function the way it does, so my end suggestion is that you should probably choose a different system to play with, and not spend so much time altering the base D&D game to fit your specific needs when there are easier options.
Quote from: PellanorI'm completely reworking the magic system for my setting, to try to take into account some of the stuff that's been mentioned in this thread. I don't have any mechanics for it yet, but here are a few of the ideas that are fairly central.
Everything is Magic / Nothing is magic.
While this does sound like a bit of a contradiction, it is the most important point for my magic system.
Basically Magic is how something that we don't understand can be accomplished. For example, a child sees a juggler for the first time, and to them, it's magic. However we see the same juggler and we know that it's just a trick, and the juggler just has good reflexes and hand-eye coordination. Now the juggler is juggling three flaming torches and a chainsaw with one hand, and we know that he's really good. For his next trick the juggler continues juggling, but now with no hands. All of a sudden it's magic. Perhaps he's just using sleight of hand to create the illusion that he's not using his hands to juggle. Perhaps he's summoned invisible fae to fly around and carry the chainsaws in circles, so that it looks like he's juggling. Perhaps it's something else, either way it's Magic as far as we're concerned.
Because of this there are no "spells". Just tricks, yet everything is still magic.
This system will allow for all sorts of cool effects, available to all characters. A high level swordsman could attack so quickly as part of a whirlwind attack that a cyclone is formed. An Elementalist could have the ground open up to swallow his foe.
Of course this will still change the shape of the battlefield. High level characters can wipe out large armies without breaking a sweat, unless they are stopped by other high level characters.
Hope that helps :)
That's a really cool idea, and it solves quite alot of problem with the magic system.
I assume professional magicians have sleight of hand as a class skill?
Quote from: sparkletwistI've tried to re-envision how the battlefield might look, trying to keep the "medieval" character to it.
you should probably choose a different system to play with[/quote]
Oh, I already have, more or less. ;)
I think what you've posted is correct assuming I tried to play pure by-the-book D&D, but that's not the right assumption. You're right that not much of it could actually adapt to D&D, especially D&D without lots of house rules.
This thread was much more about general concepts than anything specifically related to D&D-- sorry that I was kind of unclear on that. I didn't include any crunch for that reason, too. So I don't think I really have to worry that much. :) I tend to play more cinematic, freeformish games, so the PCs strictly sticking to their character classes isn't as important to me as a good game with a fun story.
Quote from: sparkletwistI'm reminded of the Arthur C. Clarke quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic."
Yeah, the idea is along the same lines, but without any high technology.
Quote from: Stargate525That's a really cool idea, and it solves quite alot of problem with the magic system.
I assume professional magicians have sleight of hand as a class skill?
It will more likely be that having enough ranks in sleight of hand will let you do magic-like stuff. For example, juggling without using your hands, picking a pocket from twenty feet away, or stealing your own pants.