Can magic ever be balanced?

SilvercatMoonpaw · September 05, 2006, 01:11:25 PM

I just responded to a thread on the Wiz boards, and it got me thinking: the way D&D, and in fact a lot of the RPGs I've seen, handle magic casters aren't much useful after their spells are gone. While following the suggested "4 encounters per day" is supposed to keep everything in line, but what if that isn't the style the DM wants to go with. And it doesn't take into account a caster not having spells that can be used in an "encounter", which makes them useless even faster. It's not as much of a problem for spontaneous casters, but they can still run out and then go splat. Some newer classes like the Warlock, Incarnum classes, and the Binder don't have this drawback, and seem much more realiable as a result. D&D magic seems to be trying to replicate the "caster running out of power" feel of some literature somewhere (I'm not sure where that is, I don't think I've ever encountered it) without realizing that a game isn't a story.

What do other people think?

Wensleydale · September 05, 2006, 01:21:43 PM

I think you're very right. My Spellfont was built around this idea... if he can break his mental barriers preventing him from touching magic, he pretty much gets a constant flow of MP.

Epic Meepo · September 05, 2006, 01:45:45 PM

I agree. I often dodge the issue of daily limits on casters in games that I run by setting caster limits per encounter or per hour, instead.

Xeviat · September 05, 2006, 02:21:24 PM

The warlock and dragon shaman offer evidence that WotC is looking at the same options. Aside from the casters, HP is what limits most characters (sure, some characters have daily use abilities, but even those are being addressed, seen with the alternate Rage in PHB2).

I will happily embrace a system which removes caster limitations, especially if it reduces the power of casters so that their per-round output is close to that of non-casters.

In my working idea, using my MP system, I think I may reduce MP by 1/2, then institute fatigue and exhaustion rules. Along with that, MP will be restored on a per hour of rest basis, just like VP or nonlethal damage. That way the exhaustion of power effect is still there (which I have seen in literature to an extent), but casters have more functionality in each encounter.

Oh, another idea: The starwars system has casters spend vitality points in order to utilize force powers. Such a system might be possible, though wizard/sorcerer would need a much higher hit die (and it might not make sense). Just a thought of another avenue to explore.

Lmns Crn · September 05, 2006, 03:27:58 PM

I think that to truly make things work, we might have to reexamine the way magic works. We take for granted that magic provides a lot of "punch" (Swiss-army knife versatility, destructive power, etc.) over a limited number of uses, while non-magic abilities can be used over and over again, as often as necessary. We take for granted that a warrior in full plate can run all over a battlefield for hours, swinging a heavy bar of bladed steel without becoming tired (how is that logical, by the by?), but a magic wielder will eventually lose effectiveness, because there comes a point when his reserves dry up, and he runs out of power for the day.

These assumptions are really ingrained. We take them for granted almost without acknowledging or realizing that we are incorporating an arbitrary standard into our general fantasy worldview and treating it like some kind of inescapable law.

So, why not ditch that assumption of limited daily power? See what happens.

The basic, primal idea of magic involves a sort of limitlessness-- a transcending of the commonly-accepted laws of reality. Naturally, embracing this idea of limitlessness in the context of a game does not help this thread's stated goal of balancing magic against non-magic abilities. So, we need to trim back some of magic's implied limitlessness potential, by imposing some kind of guidelines, to bring it back in line.

By all means, such guidelines should be tailored to fit the style and tone of the campaign setting in question, as they will shape the way magic operates and is perceived.

For example, instead of limiting magic to X uses per day...

Why not change what magic is capable of doing? Maybe magic in World X is ideal for purposes of scrying and prophecy, healing and illusion, but completely useless in terms of destruction and killing? This puts magic users in the role of utility players and moves sword-wavers to the forefront of combat (where they honestly ought to be anyway) by removing the fireball volley and save-or-die effects from the handbook of DnD tactics.

What if, instead, we change the amount of time magic users require to work their effects, or impose the requirement of a rune-inscribed sanctum or other bulky apparatus? If magic can produce powerful effects, but requires an hour or more of runny-candle rituals to accomplish anything, the effects on combat are quite obvious (I can imagine, for example, conventional soldiers defending a besieged area long enough for the mages inside to complete their last-ditch ritual to turn the tides).

Alternately, consider a system of magic in which no caster, acting independantly, has access to much power, but where a group of casters working in concert have more might. More mages in the casting circle means more power, but more opportunity for dissident opinion and political mess. The implications for such a system, where consensus and cooperation are the paths to power, are fun to imagine: one gets a ready image of a magocracy seething with scheming and politics.

Then again, how about a system where magic can be used at will under the right conditions, but those conditions are finicky. Maybe magic doesn't respond in the presence of iron (possibly explaining the archetypical metal-clad warrior prevailing over the supposedly more sophisticated sorceror.) Perhaps magic requires starlight to function, or refuses to operate in the presence of bloodshed, or is inhibited by the proximity of water, or some other idea. Here, it becomes possible to balance a system on the basis of reliable non-magical power vs. magic that accomplishes a wider range of things, but only under certain circumstances. It also sets the stage for a world creator to introduce thematic dichotomy between magic and ______, illustrating the reasons behind this strange natural law. For example, if magic is inhibited by iron, themes of primal and magical nature vs. the order of civilization and industry (perhaps stifling, perhaps protective!) can logically follow. (Remember, magic does not necessarily have to be beneficial and nice!)

Anyway, those are just a few quick ideas to get you started. Tell me what you think: this promises to be an enlightening discussion.

Wensleydale · September 05, 2006, 03:45:09 PM

Maybe as the CBG we could develop our own magic system. Even use it in cebegia.

Hibou · September 05, 2006, 03:50:22 PM

Magic can be balanced if it's not restricted to anyone. A system where anyone or anything can potentially use any level of magic is a balanced system, but not necessarily in a statistical way. There will still be distinctions between master warriors and unstoppable mages, and of course it will require study and training to master either side, but this way it is a character's fault (and maybe a bad DM's) if they fall behind in this way.

Understandably, a system that does this would be more like the core game, but with spellcasting in classes removed for a ruleset kind of like Incantations in UA. It could probably be built with a single core character class (maybe even a modified Expert), and a character just takes points or "levels" or something in combat techniques, skills, and magic strength, etc. while leaving the actual learning of spells to be "free" except for time required to learn and any backlash effects spells may have. At this point, however, the game is a far, far step from the d20 system and might as well be called something else.

Hibou · September 05, 2006, 03:53:56 PM

Perhaps as the CBG we could develop our own game system. It would be a huge undertaking, but it would be very cool. We could still be a website for worlds designed for d20, GURPs, WoD, etc. but we could carry our own system for gaming as well.

What does everyone else think?

Wensleydale · September 05, 2006, 03:56:55 PM

I personally enjoy developing backlash systems; wild magic effects, insanity etc. Witchhunt, that idea sounds like Morrowind. It would be cool to level up when you get a certain amount of skill points (gained through battle) and to be able to create your own spells (MP, casting time affected by what augmentations you add to it). That's a thought...

Wensleydale · September 05, 2006, 03:58:48 PM

Quote from: WitchHuntPerhaps as the CBG we could develop our own game system. It would be a huge undertaking, but it would be very cool. We could still be a website for worlds designed for d20, GURPs, WoD, etc. but we could carry our own system for gaming as well.

What does everyone else think?

Exactly what I thought. I think it should be based on D20 fundamentally (keep the rules for AB, abilities, saves etc) but have whole new methods of character creation, spell creation, everything. :)

SilvercatMoonpaw · September 05, 2006, 04:02:08 PM

Luminous Crayon always seems to hit thinks squarely on the blurred head.

Magic is limited to certain non-combat effects: I did this with my Ah'rem setting. There idea there was to look at magic as a sort of replacement for modern or futuristic technology (even if Ah'rem was a steampunk setting). That's where divinations came in, while evocations and conjurations often went out. Secondly I wanted to try and focus on people having to be tricky, so I took out or increased the level of the spells I thought ruined that. However, if a spell could do something like let you see at a distance, it stayed in because it added to a feel of technological effectiveness while still making players have to be tricky and tactical.

Magic requires a lot of effort to get ready: I was going to do this with my Sasam setting. The Invocation optionals rules form Unearthed Arcana and Urban Arcana use this idea. One reason this works for flavor and balance is that potentially anyone can do it: you could have a party of rogues or fighters who can get together to do a spell. Also is might actually increase the draw toward classes that can get the components necessary: fight or sneak your way into the king's personal library to steal a certain musty tome.

Magic requires more than one caster: An interesting idea, but not one I think would work if intended for player use. If we're talking a reasonably large amount of casters than it would probably take the entire team just to do it.

Magic is finiky: This one doesn't quite work in every example mentioned. The whole "magic doesn't work in the presence of iron" is really good because suddenly you have a reason for people to run around in heavy armor when they know that a caster could be around the corner. The downside in that instance is that it would need to be designed so that class that don't have spells and don't wear armor were still competitive.
Other examples, such as magic requires starlight or doesn't work in the presence of water would function poorly mechanically because it would simply turn into an exercise of "how does the caster get neutered this time?".

A route that hasn't been preposed is the alternate direction, where everyone in the group gets magical powers. Of course, this can't reasonably be done with D&D. You need something like a superhero RPG to accomplish it, and superpowered individuals aren't what everyone likes.

Wensleydale · September 05, 2006, 04:07:48 PM

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawLuminous Crayon always seems to hit thinks squarely on the blurred head.

He has a +8 inherent attack bonus against mechanical issues of the D20 subtype. :P

Mmmm.

So, who's in favour of creating our own system? Or at least, heavily modifying D20 to suit our own desires.

SilvercatMoonpaw · September 05, 2006, 04:09:57 PM

@Witchhunt and Golem011: Actually, there is more than one system where every aspect of a character is bought point-buy. Just recently I Mutants & Masterminds, and its character creation system is great: everything from skills to feats to equipment is bought using the points, even attack and defense (AC). Super-powers could quite easily handle magical or extraordinary abilities. The point I'm trying to make is that the point-buy system makes the versitility/power trade-off much more applicable.

SilvercatMoonpaw · September 05, 2006, 04:10:45 PM

Quote from: Golem011So, who's in favour of creating our own system? Or at least, heavily modifying D20 to suit our own desires.

Count me in.

Wensleydale · September 05, 2006, 04:14:10 PM

Good good. I know Witchhunt is, so that's me, you, him... who else? :)

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Can magic ever be balanced?

SilvercatMoonpaw

Wensleydale

Epic Meepo

Xeviat

Lmns Crn

Wensleydale

Hibou

Hibou

Wensleydale

Wensleydale

SilvercatMoonpaw

Wensleydale

SilvercatMoonpaw

SilvercatMoonpaw

Wensleydale