[Question] What don't you like about magic?

snakefing · August 20, 2006, 10:29:43 PM

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawD&D erroniously assumes that you can recreate the defeat of magic without someone pulling all the strings.

I think this is generally true, but at the same time there are some ways to balance things out for magic to be a little less overwhelming than all that. The big problem with D&D is that they want their wizards to be throwing around world-shaking magic, and they want them to be balanced with other classes. That is a tall order.

One approach I've been playing around with is to make the really powerful magic available, but very expensive. Thus, a mage could hypothetical through out that sixth level spell, but it will really tax them and leave them basically helpless. Or they can throw out lots of smaller spells.

Two possible mechanics I've got in mind, neither one fully developed:

Spell points: The spell point cost scales as (spell level) * (caster level). Min caster level is the level at which spell can first be cast in normal system, or optionally just equal to spell level for more flexibility. Spell points scale as (level)^2. Spell point recovery scales as (level). In this system, a basic 6th level spell at min caster level (11) would cost 66 spell points. A caster could do that a couple of times...but it could take weeks to recover the spell points. And damage doesn't scale unless you spend enough to bump the caster level.

Exact details would have to be worked out to balance it out properly.

Mana level: Caster's mana strength scales as (level). Casting a spell deducts (spell level) from mana strength. When mana strength is gone, you can't cast anything any more. Go past your mana strength, you risk mana fatigue and/or mana shock, with major consequences. Mana strength returns faster though, maybe at the rate of 1 per hour normally. So a mage can cast spells fairly often, but the amount of spells they can cast in a short time period is strictly limited.

With this one, I think you'd need to restat the spells. Also I'm not sure about damage scaling and save DC's.

Anyway, both these approaches do allow wizards or sorcerers to cast quite powerful magic. But there's a serious consequence whenever they start using their most powerful magic, so they would have to think a bit more about whether that Cone of Cold is really worth it.

Defeating magic in such cases is a matter of forcing the wizard to spend their resources faster than they can recover them.

Matt Larkin (author) · August 21, 2006, 12:48:28 AM

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI think what D&D suffers from is the lack of an all-controlling narrator. In any story in which we see magic it gets defeated because of cleverness or pure force of will, because it can't fight the narrator. But in a cooperative game there is no way to ensure that these things can bring magic down.

Magic always has been, and always will be, more powerful than the guy with the sword or the guy with the brain. The only reason anyone defeats magic without magic is that thinking can potentially defeat everyone, or the person's will is just plain stronger than anything that can be thrown at them. The first is impossible to represent mechanically, the second you might but it would never work how you want it.

D&D erroniously assumes that you can recreate the defeat of magic without someone pulling all the strings.

That's pretty insightful, and I mostly agree. However, some games do succeed in balancing magic with normal characters. Those are the games where magic is a two-edged sword (a Faustian bargain, even). I would cite WFRP, and possibly CoC. If you're willing to pay the price, you can have great power. But you risk a high price. Something I've attempted to duplicate in my Kishar system. Unlimited use magic, that the caster himself limits out of fear.

Quote from: snakefingOne approach I've been playing around with is to make the really powerful magic available, but very expensive. Thus, a mage could hypothetical through out that sixth level spell, but it will really tax them and leave them basically helpless. Or they can throw out lots of smaller spells.

Unfortunately, there can still be the issue that even low-level spells allow a wizard to do things a fighter cannot hope to match.
Hold person can often be the low-level equivalent of save-or-die. Fly is hard for a fighter to counter. Invisibility, well, you get the idea. Even something as simple as mirror image can totally tie-up a melee guy while he tries to sort it out (though that's more in-line with the kind of power that makes sense; we'll say close on on-par).

the_taken · August 21, 2006, 12:49:17 AM

Sword damage that scales acording to your level. That makes too much sense.

A list of thigs people don't like about magic as presented in D&D.

Silence spell. Don't need to Tumble, teleport with Dimension Door. Locked door in the way? Don't get those lock picks out, since you can Knock it open. Or Shatter it to smiterines. Ah ha ha!

*The spell componant joke. You actualy don't realize there's a joke 'till somebody points it out and you've re-read your high school chemistry notes.

*Extra action cheese. Caster's have a familiar, a contingeant spell, a quickened spell, a contigeant spell on the familiar, crafted contingeant spells, crafted contingeant spells on the familiar... and that's just the wizards.[/list]
Is this list difinitive, or can anything else be added?

beejazz · August 21, 2006, 10:53:29 AM

Hmmm...
Let's put four fighters 100ft away from a wizard. *BOOM*

Now let's try putting one wizard within five feet of four rogues. *AoO'd, Interrupted, Sneaked*

the_taken · August 21, 2006, 12:01:32 PM

That's a Paper, Rock, Scissors sceneario. Which is totaly unfair.

Matt Larkin (author) · August 21, 2006, 12:19:35 PM

Not the fighter would like being flanked by four rogues either. Even the barb probably wouldn't like it, even if they couldn't flank, it's stil four on one!

the_taken · August 21, 2006, 12:33:13 PM

So the rock deafeats paper by being denser and smashing thru it.

Imp.Uncanny Dodge + Great Cleave will teach those rogues to surround the guy foaming at the mouth. A fighter doesn't get Imp.Uncanny dodge, wich totaly baffles me.

Edit->Each of these paragraphs have no relation to each other, 'cept for this one wich talks about the other two.

Lmns Crn · August 21, 2006, 12:35:11 PM

QuoteA fighter doesn't get Imp.Uncanny dodge, wich totaly baffles me.

Me too. At the very least, UD ought to be available as feats.

Epic Meepo · August 21, 2006, 01:26:28 PM

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
QuoteA fighter doesn't get Imp.Uncanny dodge, wich totaly baffles me.
Definately. I mean, honestly, how do you flank a high-level monk? You shouldn't be able to.

Epic Meepo · August 21, 2006, 01:28:19 PM

Quote from: the_takenThat's a Paper, Rock, Scissors sceneario. Which is totaly unfair.

The entire class and level system is a Paper, Rock, Scissors scenario. That's the point. Some classes will almost always win in certain circumstances, others will almost always win in others.

Lmns Crn · August 21, 2006, 01:46:08 PM

Quote from: Epic Meepo
Quote from: the_takenThat's a Paper, Rock, Scissors sceneario. Which is totaly unfair.
The entire class and level system is a Paper, Rock, Scissors scenario. That's the point. Some classes will almost always win in certain circumstances, others will almost always win in others.

This is true. The artificial part of a rock-paper-scissors scenario is that one-on-one fights between equal-levelled characters of Class X vs. Class Y are not the way issues in-game are typically resolved.

If you're playing Mortal Kombat-style d20, then "Class X beats Class Y" discussions are very useful. Most games don't happen that way, though, and consequently I don't care whether Class X knocks the stuffing out of Class Y nine times out of ten or not. That's because characters of Class X, Class Y, and Class Z are all working together to achieve goals cooperatively, in a forum where (ideally!) all of their varied strengths cover each others' varied weaknesses.

Because gaming is typically a cooperative effort, not a battle royale, "Class X beats Class Y in a fight" is not a useful statement on its own. If that's someone's only evidence of a problem, it's not enough to make me care. However, "Class X makes Class Y unnecessary and redundant" is a very different issue-- and a pretty serious one.

the_taken · August 21, 2006, 02:47:09 PM

As an example of redundancy, you don't need a warrior type in the party if you have a spellcaster cause magic can be used to make golems or summon some pretty good warriors. Hell, planar binding a fiendish beholder (caster-type) is better than binding a fiendish purple worm.

Lmns Crn · August 21, 2006, 02:58:45 PM

Okay, I'm finally responding to the title question of this thread. Here's what LC dislikes about magic:

The system is sprawling and complicated, and it gets more worse with every new book release. Seriously, I can understand the importance of nuance, but there comes a point where enough is enough-- we really don't need any more spells. Discounting issues like power creep and uneven scaling of power between casters and noncasters with each new suppliment (both entirely new cans of worms to be opened), a lot of things are redundant. I'd prefer to have a simplified system that allows for individual variation on a smaller number of core ideas: don't give me two dozen level 1 damage spells, give me one or two, and the ability to cast each of them in a few different ways.

The Arcane/Divine distinction, the Psionics/Magic distinction, and other arbitrary divides. There is really no reason to introduce this sort of mechanical complexity to further clutter-up an already complex mechanism. We can get the same results (if we must) by giving spellcasting classes different spell lists (which we're doing already, anyway!) Dividing magic into arcane and divine categories is arbitrary, pointless, and redundant. Dividing the whole notion of "supernatural effects" into magic and psionic categories is even worse, because it requires me to familiarize myself with an entirely new set of game mechanics. What we really need is a simple and concise system that's used by anybody who does anything supernatural; then leave details about how they did it up to players, DMs, and writers.

When you strip away the actual game mechanics themselves, what's the difference between the concept of a bard, an enchanter wizard, a cleric of Trickery (or whatever), a sorceror with a lot of mind magic, and a psion who specializes in mental effects? Tell me honestly: is that difference enough to justify an entirely new book of game rules? Is it even enough to justify distinct classes for these spellcasters? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Magic is the skeleton key-- it fits every lock-- especially at high levels. It takes a while for this to become apparent, but as characters gain levels, magic solves more and more of their problems. Magic becomes the tool of choice for any issue, whether it's investigation (scrying!), stealth and infiltration (teleport in, invisibly!), countering traps and assorted hazards (I could name A MILLION THINGS), asskicking (massive area damage and save-or-die effects), and a multitude of other things. The logic behind this versatility and efficacy is that casters can do pretty much anything they like once or twice a day while non-casters can fulfill their more specialized roles until the cows come home. But the harsh reality is that once or twice a day per issue is often enough.

The entire "maximum effect, minimum duration" setup. As I mentioned above, what I mean here is the notion that casters can do anything very well, for a very short time (in contrast to non-casters' comparitively steady mediocrity.) I'd like to see casters evened out more, so that they don't dominate everything very briefly, then become pretty useless for the rest of the day.

The entire "glass cannon" concept. In combat, most casters, at least theoretically, can cause a huge amount of damage, but they're relatively pretty fragile: hence the term "glass cannon." I don't like that setup. I want to see the role of "dedicated face-wrecker" default to non-magical combatants-- and not just when the mages have run out of spells, either! Conversely, I want to see spellcasters that aren't so fragile in battle. I don't buy the idea that magical strength precludes physical toughness.

I don't like systems that aren't explained. I don't have a problem with Vancian magic, strictly speaking. I've seen literary examples where Vancian magic is used to great effect-- check out Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber, if you haven't already. (The last five books feature a protagonist who is a Vancian-style spellcaster, and most interestingly, give the reader some insight as to why that magic works the way it does, and why it's prepared ahead of time.) D&D, on the other hand, presents an unusual system without any explanation for why the system is there, or for what it looks like to the actual characters who'd use it. I think that's a big part of why Vancian magic turns so many people off: not just because it's Vancian magic, but because there's no effort taken to make that system make sense.

Magic's invasive. Societally, it's everywhere. Largely a game-world-flavor-specific complaint, sure, but the mechanics make that flavor situation very logical and natural. Magic's everywhere. It's everywhere because it's useful. It's everywhere because it's necessary to counteract the abilities of spellcasting characters. It supplants mundane equivalents everywhere. If a character gets injured and looks for medical care, does he see a doctor? No, because a first level cleric of any faith is a better healer than a non-spellcasting doctor will ever be, ever.

It's too fast, and it's too flashy. Magic as-written is a system based around the idea of instant gratification. That's well and good, I suppose, for a certain kind of game. I'd much prefer to take out all the swift, flashy "I'm killing you with a snap of my fingers!" business and reduce magic to a matter of rituals and runes-- powerful and slow, in the manner of glacial movement, or continental drift. There's a time and a place for everything, and the place for magic is not in the middle of a melee, and the time for magic is not right this instant.

Magic makes a lot of interesting hardships trivial. In conventional fiction, even a small wound can be a huge deal-- it can fester, it can bring a fever, and it can basically kill you dead, even if it's in a non-vital place (say, your arm.) A first-level divine spellcaster can laugh that off, and help others do the same. Sickness is a powerful idea in fiction, but in DnD, it's a non-issue, because every sickness can be dealt with by relative novices in the spellcasting community. (As DMs, we could always use special diseases that resist magical healing, but we aren't fooling anybody: that's a cop-out answer, and it's lame.) Even death is not a problem, because with the exception of some fairly rare circumstances, getting someone brought back to life is pretty simple to accomplish.

Magic short-circuits a lot of plot ideas. Life-restoring spells undermine the effectiveness of "the King has been killed!" story ideas. "Speak With Dead" solves a murder-mystery while completely bypassing all the things that make murder-mysteries fun. Getting revenge on the orcs that killed your family (or whatever) becomes a less potent motivator when you consider that lots of adventurers could (eventually) afford to pay to get his parents resurrected if they wanted to sell off that +4 battleaxe of pwnage. I know that a lot of writers have done really good jobs about working around these sort of issues (Jurgen Hubert, with Urbis, springs quickly to my mind with some really clever examples,) but my point is that they shouldn't have to do that. The fact that anyone should have to work so hard to assemble a logical game or a logical setting in spite of the magic system... that indicates to me that the magic system has some serious problems.

And that's my two (dozen) cents.

SilvercatMoonpaw · August 21, 2006, 03:52:29 PM

Let me preface by reminding people that I never assume that you shouldn't be allowed to follow your own ideas.

@Luminous: I agree with #1-5, I can get around #6 on my own, (#7) I like it when magic pervades society (it actually strikes me as odd sometimes that low-level pratical-use magic isn't more common), (#8) slow-acting magic actually switches my disbelief back on and up to high, and I highly agree with #9-10.

Where we differ, I think, is that there are some things magic can do that I've always felt just need to be done, just like some modern technology gives people more opportunity and flexibility. Magic is essentially super-technology with different complex fiddly bits. What D&D does is propose magic that more than 90% of the population won't use, and that's even in the low-level range (0-2 level spells). What we see in the proliferation of spells is just new ways to kill things.

When I said that magic in stories could only be trumped because there is a narrator pulling all the strings, part of what I meant is that magic is supposed to be better than mundane stuff in myths and legends. Magic lets you do what was previously impossible or really hard. Magic is a plot-excuse, a facillitator for getting the story from A to B. D&D, or indeed any other high-fantasy game, does is split the story between the characters and the narrator, and once the plot-excuse is no longer completely contolled by the one creating the plot it can circumvent the plot rather than be part of it.

So what do we have to do to fix magic? Start by remembering that the system being designed is for a game and not a story. Magic must be designed to fail on its own probability rather than on the whims of some omniscient author. Various rule-sets try to do that, so it's been covered. Second is that there should be a toss-up between magic and mundane. The most common method is the price, which many of you here at the CBG do well. Other methods make magic hard to gain, or slow to apply, or reduce its overall power. The method you use depends on what image you want to invoke. One thing that could be done is to look at how technology today is "balanced": it costs energy that you don't always have access to, anyone can use it (with maybe a little training), it requires a lot of work to make from scratch and may also have bulky parts.

Matt Larkin (author) · August 21, 2006, 05:36:47 PM

I'm not sure you can "fix" magic because different people have different conceptions of the problem with it and how it should be. All you can really do is create it the way you envision it, and hope those playing in your game, setting, or reading your work appreciate your vision.

One reason magic in D&D is problematic because the game is balanced around high-magic. The thing is, if it was balanced around lower magic, the game would be easier to scale up for high-magic worlds than it is to scale down power-level presupposes a high number of magic items. You can scale up by giving everyone more stuff. You cannot as easily scale back, without tweaking lots of stuff. Classes, monsters, everything is ripe with magic and the need for magic to balance it (if balance is even possible).

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

[Question] What don't you like about magic?

snakefing

Matt Larkin (author)

the_taken

beejazz

the_taken

Matt Larkin (author)

the_taken

Lmns Crn

Epic Meepo

Epic Meepo

Lmns Crn

the_taken

Lmns Crn

SilvercatMoonpaw

Matt Larkin (author)