Endless Horizons - Magic

[Xeviat]

In "Endless Horizons", magic is intrinsically tied to the five elements: Air, Earth, Fire, Water, and Æther. Magic is a natural part of the world, even the mundane world of Terran (not to mention the magical world of Avalon). The energy of magic, called mana, comes from the spirits of the world.

Spirits reside within every object and creature. Most spirits are weak, and most could hardly be called sentient by humanoid standards. Drawing mana from spirits does not normally harm these spirits in any way, as the casting of a spell does not use up its energy, it only transfers and changes the energy. Excessive drain upon spirits could cause them harm, but most spell-casters are not capable of drawing so much energy at once.

Magic comes in two forms: Spells and Rituals. Spells are quick to cast, and most spell-casters have only mastered a select few. Mana is required to cast a spell, depleting a spell-caster's resources. Rituals are slow to cast, requiring both time and special materials. The mana for a ritual comes from the materials, not the caster, and thus non-spell-casters are capable of casting rituals. Casting a ritual is a simple matter of following the instructions and utilizing the proper materials; the knowledge and ability of the caster influences the strength and effectiveness of a ritual.

-------------

Here is where I need your help. I spent some time flirting with other systems, but after much thought, I have decided to stick with D&D. It's a system I know and love, my players are familiar with it, and it speaks to so much of my setting since it has always been a D&D setting. This doesn't mean I'm unwilling to make alterations; I am the self-proclaimed Captain of Crunch after all.

Moving forward, I need to decide on how I'm going to parse the spell-casting classes. I am leaning towards two approaches: Traditional and Elemental.

Traditional
This approach utilizes the existing classes/power sources, but it re-themes them:

• Arcane - Wizard; arcane casters draw their mana from the spirits of the world through arcane rituals, requiring years of study and practice. Their study breeds a respect for the power, but not necessarily a respect for the source.
• Divine - Cleric; divine casters worship ancestral spirits, the lingering spirits of mortals. They are given their mana from these ancestral spirits, and are thus required to serve the interests of their faith.
• Primal - Druid; primal casters revere nature spirits, the spirits residing in the objects and creatures of the world. They are given their mana from these nature spirits by exchanging small favors. Nature spirits are not dogmatic like ancestral spirits; they care about their interests and the interests of the natural world.
• Psionic/Ki - "Psion"; psionic/ki casters do not draw their mana from the outside world, they produce it themselves. Psionic/ki talent is often thought of as inborn, but it can often be awakened through various disciplines. Innately magical creatures fall under this heading.

Elemental
In the Elemental system, there will be 4 primary caster classes, one for Air, Earth, Fire, and Water each. Air casters can't use Earth magic, Fire casters can't use Water magic, and vice versa. This has a strength of making magic feel immediately different, but it would have repercussions. I would need to reconsider the Bard, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk classes as I've previously conceived them. I would need to wholly build these classes spell lists/power lists (as the system dictates), though I have previous work to help me in this. The differences between casters present in the above system would be subsumed by either backgrounds, themes, or feats, used to further specialize/detail where a caster's mana comes from.

In writing this, I find myself more comfortable with the traditional approach, but I wanted to get some thoughts.

-----------

A slightly separate issue, I need some advice on how magic would have effected the progression of the world. The range of magic will be the same as, or at least very similar, to what was present in 3rd Edition D&D, though with the thoughts on compartmentalizing magic and rituals like 4E. For instance, I don't want spell-casters casting "raise dead" every single day (and in that, and many other cases, would be more of a grand quest than a single ritual).

As I am writing a game setting, there are certain things that will be done out of game considerations. I will be using implements, like D&D4, in the setting materials. Disarming a Wizard of his wand should debilitate them the same as disarming a Fighter of his sword; he can still punch you, but it won't be the same. Thus, I think there could be a progression of magical "technology", much like the progression from bronze to iron to steel in weapons and armor. If a wizard of X level can do Y damage to 1 creature with a spell, I want a fighter of X level to do a similar amount of damage to 1 creature with a hammer. Then again, higher level wizards and fighters are going to be just as rare combined with the general rest of the world, so that might not be an issue.

Similarly, I think many spells and rituals, especially high level things, simply may not have existed early on. At the very least, having magicians put up a pyramid, for instance, should take effort on the order of building it by hand; faster, and the construction could break the laws of physics, but it would still take considerable effort. Technology develops, so I want magic to develop too.

What are the main issues that I should address when concerning how magic would have shaped the world? I can see magic effecting the courts, at least until societies get a bit more progressive and they consider that a spell-casting truthseeker could be biased. Shipping and other travel around the world would be altered if spell-casters could teleport things as well as people. I don't think the existence of walls, forts, and castles will really be affected by magic, as a good wall still keeps out a fireball; I think transmutation spells should target object HP in some fashion, ignoring damage reduction or whatever keeps stone from being harmed by other damage. Cannons slowly eroded the use of fortifications, but they also spurred the strengthening of fortifications.

I've been typing this thread for a few hours now, so I'll just sit it down and see what grows.

[sparkletwist]

Magic comes in two forms: Spells and Rituals.

What your magic system suggests to me is that there are two basic categories of magic in your world-- rituals that anyone can do, and invocations that require "spell casting" knowledge but are rather specialized and most casters don't know many of them. Since everyone can do rituals, it seems like they're best modeled as a sort of knowledge rather than anything inherent to the class.

So, here's a crazy idea. It seems to me that these specialized spells might be better modeled as feats. Since each caster only knows a few of them, it doesn't seem to throw off the system too much, and you can always give a few bonus feats to compensate if you want. Then, your "basic classes" look something like:
- Fighter - still the guy with the beatstick
- Rogue - still the one who sneaks around and does stuff
- Cleric/Monk - lots of religious knowledge, turns undead, healing etc.
- Arcanist - lots of secular arcane knowledge, builds magic items etc.

None of them, by default, have any magic. The cleric is just the religious guy, the arcanist is just the guy who knows a lot about the workings of magic and probably knows more rituals and such. However, essentially, everyone's a gish. Anyone can learn rituals or spells if they want to. The cleric or the arcanist might be a little better at it, but they all have their chance. Mechanically, this fixes the whole "casters are way better than fighters" problem 3.x suffers from.

Anyway, do with it what you want. I will probably be developing something like this in a completely different direction than you're taking it, assuming you even take it at all.

If a wizard of X level can do Y damage to 1 creature with a spell, I want a fighter of X level to do a similar amount of damage to 1 creature with a hammer.

This kind of leads to a certain "sameness" between the classes. It's one of the complaints I would have about 4e.
I like the idea of magic being a higher-risk, higher-reward, rarer kind of thing. But that's just me. :D

[Humabout]

Allow me to preface this response by informing you that I quit D&D when they released 4e, but I had extensive 3.x experience in designing custom classes.  I now reside very firmly in GURPSland.

I get the distinct feeling you need to further elaborate on how magic works before progressing.  So, to help, I'm going ot ask an annoying number of questions!

1) What are the fundamental sources of magical power (mana, commanding spirits, granted powers from deities/spirits, one's own soul, tremendous skill, etc.)?

2) How is magic worked?

3) Is magic a fundamentally slow process that some talented individuals can speed up, or is it a fundamentally quick process that unpracticed casters are too slow to perform on the spot?

4) What can magic do?

5) What can't it do?

6) What makes a magical working more difficult?

7) What makes a magical working take longer?

8) Are there ways to artificially speed up casting?

9) Are there ways to make casting easier?

10) What are the side effects of casting magic?

11) Do different power sources carry different risks?

12) Who can use magic?  Is it limited by bloodline, species, gender, etc.?

13) Can magic be made permanent in charms, amulets, glowign swords, tactical nuclear donkeys, etc.?

For what it's worth, I would personally make my own classes that reflect my concept of magic.  In the end, it will create a far more engrossing setting for players and generally leave the setting feeling more natural, in game.  That and making classes is a lot of fun!  But before you even tackle that, I'd sit down and write a few pages on what magic is, who uses it, how it works, and the nature of its limits.  That guideline will be invaluable in making your final decision and in shaping any new classes you do decide to make.

[Xeviat]

Thanks for the posts; great questions. They're hard to answer because "like D&D" is where my mind has been for the longest time, as I did start out making a D&D setting and a setting for my novels at the same time. I'll try to answer the questions without referencing D&D too much. But again, I'm not worried about the mechanics just yet, I'm just trying to decide how I want to represent the casters through a class system.

1) What are the fundamental sources of magical power (mana, commanding spirits, granted powers from deities/spirits, one's own soul, tremendous skill, etc.)?

For most casters, magic is drawn from the spirits; only some produce the magic themselves, but this is just their bodies drawing in the power without their volition. All magic is associated with an element, and comes from spirits of those associated elements. On a basic level, magic involves commanding spirits to perform tasks, or manipulating a spirit (casting a charm on a person is manipulating their spirit), but since most spirits are not sentient this is superficially the same as not involving the spirits. Whether causing a fire spirit to grow in power and then erupt (not killing the spirit mind you, just spreading out their power till they can coalesce once more) isn't different than just making a fireball. The differences between casters comes from how they command this power.

2) How is magic worked?

Because energy cannot be created or destroyed, mana is required as a catalyst to get the energy of a spirit to change forms. When a caster absorbs mana (which could be a small ritual done after combat or at the beginning of the day, depending on how the system ends up operating), they are merely borrowing it from the ambient energy, and it is re-released when a spell is cast. Yes, this means magic violates the law of entropy. Some use prayers to coax the spirits, others prey upon spirits strange adherence to arcane custom, but it is largely about imposing your will over the energy to ensure that it does what you are telling it to do.

3) Is magic a fundamentally slow process that some talented individuals can speed up, or is it a fundamentally quick process that unpracticed casters are too slow to perform on the spot?

This is where things have to differ between spells and ritual. Rituals are inherently slow processes that require talent to perform properly. In theory, a very talented ritualist could speed up the process, just like a talented cook can speed up the process of preparing ingredients, but there is some time that is simply required. Casting a spell is typically a fast process that unpracticed casters are simply incapable of doing, even if they're showed how. A simple, non-magical, analogy would involve me an a 1 ton weight; I could be showed the process of lifting it, but I am simply incapable of doing so without outside help. Non-casters simply cannot even attempt to cast spells, but this is probably due to their inability to draw and hold mana.

4) What can magic do?

Almost anything given a powerful practitioner? Especially when it comes to rituals. I don't want it to be the end-all, be-all solution to every problem, though.

5) What can't it do?

Raise the dead; I want this type of plot to involve a grand quest. I suppose it could still be considered a ritual, but the ingredients required would involve a quest in and of itself.

6) What makes a magical working more difficult?

Not sure what's being asked. If someone's mana has been tasked, casting is going to be difficult, but this is largely inherent in the system being used. If I wasn't using a system, I'd describe casting spells as growing more and more taxing as someone drained their mana reserves; once empty, they'd be forced to draw mana before they could cast another spell (similar to taking a breather to regain some measure of physical stamina).

7) What makes a magical working take longer?

I've always liked the idea of higher level spells taking longer to cast (like L5R does it), with increases in difficulty to speed it up, but that is a system concern. In fiction, though, that's a structure I'd be fine with. Another non-magical analogy: a person may not be able to knock a wall down in one blow, but given unlimited time they should be able to damage, breach, or even destroy it.

8) Are there ways to artificially speed up casting?

Again, this is more a game mechanics question. Related to rituals, as above, skill could speed up the process to some degree.

9) Are there ways to make casting easier?

I suppose devices could make casting easier, or more likely more effective, just like a knife makes killing someone easier than using your fist.

10) What are the side effects of casting magic?

My setting requires magic to be more commonplace than settings where magic taxes more than energy. The only side effect of casting magic, narratively, would be exhaustion. I suppose there could be heinous rituals that anger the spirits you utilize, and then you may face their wrath later.

11) Do different power sources carry different risks?

Again, I don't believe there will be too much risk except to your own energy as far as spell-casting is concerned. Rituals, though, often call upon a caster to perform favors for the spirits being called upon; fire spirits like to be given flammable objects to burn, for instance. Powerful rituals may call for similarly high priced sacrifices, as powerful rituals call upon deities (powerful spirits, not omnipotent deities like in other settings).

12) Who can use magic?  Is it limited by bloodline, species, gender, etc.?

Anyone can use magic, similar to "anyone" can understand and apply theoretical physics. There's no inherent reason any one individual couldn't learn to use magic, other than a mental or physical deficiency of their own. Some species favor one element over another (especially the races created by the Elemental Gods). Some magic is more inborn than others ("psionics"), but even that can be learned in some cases ("psions" are more prone to developing a magical talent without study).

13) Can magic be made permanent in charms, amulets, glowign swords, tactical nuclear donkeys, etc.?

Yes. Both narratively and game-mechanically, though, I don't want people to be Christmas trees, decked out in all the latest magical gear. I can easily avoid this in a system like D&D, though, so I'm not worried about it too much. Binding magic to an item is a ritual involving either adding more power to the spirit of the item, or sometimes bonding another spirit to the item against its will. Many seemingly mundane acts of creation are in fact forging magical items in their own right; a skilled swordsmith, for instance, creates a magical weapon when they forge a weapon, as the time and care they give to the task awakens magic within the spirit of the weapon. So perhaps adventurers could be wearing a lot of magical gear, it's just not always sparkling and obvious.

------------

Part of me wants to just make my own classes to be more unique, but then I'd be losing out on the evocative images that the stereotypes of D&D give me access to, like Bards, Paladins, Rangers, and other "half-casters". I can easily re-envision these as multiclasses, but in traditional D&D I have always viewed these classes as more unique than a multiclass would allow.

---------

Sparkle, your idea has its merits, and in another time I would have immediately jumped upon it and ran with it. It's a very interesting idea. I'm worried it could encourage everyone to have a bit of magic and discourage people from going magic-less, and I'm not sure that's the feeling I want.

As for sameness of classes coming from round-by-round balance, I worry that hoping to achieve encounter balance without round balance is a difficult goal. If fights always lasted X rounds, it would be possible. Giving spellcasters, for instance, big encounter powers and weak at-wills could be potentially balanced against a non-caster having potent at-wills and only marginally better (or nonexistent) encounters. Having big bangs also encourages nova-ing, which has been the bane of my existence as a DM from the get-go.

There is a big advantage to finding a balance in such a system, though. It allows magic to feel far more special, which is definitely something I'd appreciate. After all, fiction where a spellcaster is dropping magic every six seconds for a solid minute are pretty few and far between, and I don't think I'd want to see that in my own books (unless you include minor magic on par with simple weapon attacks, such as wand strikes and such).

Though I'm not worried about the mechanics persay right now; I'll start worrying about them more when D&DNext is more understood.

[Humabout]

Okay . . . MORE QUESTIONS! (and some comments)

1)  Looks like you're already leaning toward needing new classes here.  Do people gain the ability to use magic from gods?  From spirits?  Or is it innate?

2)  Sounds pretty good.  Right now isn't the time to worry about mechanics or classes or anything, though.  Try to think as though you're explaining this stuff to a person in your novel.

3)  So how fast magic can be worked depends on some innate quality?  A person lacking this quality simply takes longer to gather the energy needed to work the magic, while a person gifted with the quality can perform the task faster?  Are there degrees to this, or is it black and white?  Can Bob be super-fast, Harry be medium-fast, and Karynn be relegated to racing turtles?

4)  Magic is only a skeleton key to problems if the circumstances allow its use.  If a ritual takes three hours and some rare herb only found in Tibet, it's not an option when you have 5 minutes in aisle 12 at the Walmart outside Keithsburg, IL.  So leaving it open ended isn't an issue, I don't think.

5)  Anything else?  I usually ban time travel, because the resulting plots give me headaches.  What about teleportation?  It removes all the fun adventures involved in getting to the quest and potentially circumvents entire dungeons.  To what extent can magic heal?  Can it restore lost limbs?  Can it make someone unkillable?  Can it destroy a person's soul?  Can it erase a person's spirit?

6)  Put another way, is it equally easy for a magician to magically levitate a piece of paper as it is to lift a castle into orbit...around Neptune?  Does a practitioner's skill level matter?  If it does matter, how does it matter?  Is it as easy to cause a soft wind as it is to create a functional quantum computer from thin air?

7)  So some spells take longer to cast than others.  Why?  Because it's harder to cast?  If so, what makes it harder?  Because it requires you to draw in more mana to cast it, and drawing in mana takes time?

8)  Not really a game mechanical question so much as a magic mechanical question.  Could incorporating various ingredients make a spell cast faster?  Could reciting a spell like you're reading the side effects for Zoloft cast it faster?  What if a bard plays his song at twice the normal tempo?

9)  What about the time of day, the alignment of the stars, using additional materials, including sacrifices, utilizing sympethetic correspondences like having the target's blood, nails, hair, clothing, etc. present when casting, or contageons like voodoo dolls?

10)  Makes sense enough.  Can you anger the spirits by just being annoying with your magic?  Frex, always making air elementals brush the dirt from your path so your feet stay clean at all times or having water elementals ensure that your hair always has that ever-so-attractive wet, slicked-back look.  (I'd be annoyed if I was one of those elementals...)

11)  Got no questions there.

12)  What's the difference between Psionics and Magic?  What about divine miracles....are they Magic also?  How do all of these differ?  Do they all require mana?  Do they all use it the same way?  Also, a Psion is a computer, an alien race from DC Comics, and a type of meson.  :p

13)  Fair enough answer.  And you beat me to my followup questions, too.  :(

I warned you there'd be an annoying number of questions, didn't I?

----

I don't know if it matters much to you, but despite my very definite ideas bout magic in my settings, I still manage to maintain such casters as bards, clerics, druids, mageblades, paladins, and other casters/gishes.  For instance, Bards have elevated their skill to magical levels; this is similar to how dwarves and other craftsmen create magic items - they're just THAT good.  Paladins are just channeling the will of their faith, so it's pretty much just miracles like the ones Clerics perform.  Druids are just Clerics of a different religion.  Mageblades just use some specialized magic that makes them more effective at combat.  Monks have elevated their skill level, just as Bards.  Wizards use magic.

[Xeviat]

1)  Looks like you're already leaning toward needing new classes here.  Do people gain the ability to use magic from gods?  From spirits?  Or is it innate?

Possibly. I detailed it in my first post, what the core D&D classes would be if I used them as-is. Some people are given their power by a deity that they worship (divine), some people get it from the lesser spirits on a more personal level (primal), others take it from the spirits (arcane), while some make it themselves (I like the word "sorcerer" for this, as it encompasses naturally magical creatures as well; psionics is included here as well, they just focus on the mental aspects of personal magic). I could do these as "flavors" of elemental classes, like a background or a theme or just a feat, but something feels more right about having the themes be the classes and have elemental preferences be the flavors.

3)  So how fast magic can be worked depends on some innate quality?  A person lacking this quality simply takes longer to gather the energy needed to work the magic, while a person gifted with the quality can perform the task faster?  Are there degrees to this, or is it black and white?  Can Bob be super-fast, Harry be medium-fast, and Karynn be relegated to racing turtles?

Are we talking spells or rituals? Ritualists don't gather mana, as they're utilizing the mana present in the ingredients utilized in a ritual (I could see giving spell-casters an edge in rituals, allowing them to invest their own power to ignore some ritual components, much like some D&D4 classes get free daily rituals). As far as spells, ignoring game mechanics and just thinking of how I'd envision it for myself, I could see a weaker caster biting off more than they can chew and taking a long time to cast a spell; they aren't taking longer because they're bad, they're taking longer because they need longer to gather the energy to invest into the spell (if their mana pool was X, but it took 2X to cast the spell ...). Most casters aren't drawing mana as they cast their spell (that would be slow, and not useful in combat), they draw the mana and hold it till it's needed.

Thinking of it that way, I could see casters capable of grand spells out of the hustle and bustle of a skirmish, since they'd have the time to draw more mana and reinvest it. I would even be okay with multiple casters working towards the same end. Taking a glance at game mechanics, as long as round-economy was maintained, I'd be fine with this. Taking 10 rounds to put a spell together would be fine if that spell was 10x stronger than what could be done in one round; I just don't see anyone doing that from anywhere but a fortification.

And of course, some potent casters could have things like Quickened spells.

5)  Anything else?  I usually ban time travel, because the resulting plots give me headaches.  What about teleportation?  It removes all the fun adventures involved in getting to the quest and potentially circumvents entire dungeons.  To what extent can magic heal?  Can it restore lost limbs?  Can it make someone unkillable?  Can it destroy a person's soul?  Can it erase a person's spirit?

I'd only allow very limited time travel (I've always liked the time travel spells that are really just duplication spells: "I jump back in time a minute to help myself, and then the first me has to disappear to make that jump). I love teleportation, but it will definitely require familiarity; teleportation is one of those effects which could drastically change the world, as it would entirely change the nature of shipping. Magic can heal anything up to the point of death, but not instantly. It can restore lost limbs, but again, not instantly. I don't think it could make someone unkillable, except in those round about ways like liches or immunity to X. Magic can destroy a soul/spirit (that's some very bad juju), but trapping is far easier.

I may allow teleportation fueled shipping, and all the other crazy things; that's part of what this discussion was for, to figure out how magic would alter the world from a realistic medieval/renaissance world.

6)  Put another way, is it equally easy for a magician to magically levitate a piece of paper as it is to lift a castle into orbit...around Neptune?  Does a practitioner's skill level matter?  If it does matter, how does it matter?  Is it as easy to cause a soft wind as it is to create a functional quantum computer from thin air?

No, there is a difference between strength of effects. I'd like them to be the same "spell", though, as I have always preferred spells that scale to needing new higher level versions. In this case, in world (not in game), skill level matters in that lifting a castle into orbit would require intense amounts of energy, and a unskilled caster simply won't have that kind of oomph. Skill, not power, would matter in the level of refinement; an unskilled X level wizard could telekinetically lift a rock and throw it, but a very skilled X level wizard could throw the same rock through a tiny window ...

7)  So some spells take longer to cast than others.  Why?  Because it's harder to cast?  If so, what makes it harder?  Because it requires you to draw in more mana to cast it, and drawing in mana takes time?

Some spells could take a long time to cast because of the nature of the spell; maybe you have to draw more spirits to an area than would be normally present, or maybe you have to coerce a single spirit to do your bidding, or maybe you just need time to pump that much mana into an application. As I said earlier, most don't draw as they cast, as that would take much more time; I like the idea of drawing taking time and typically being out of combat as a way of justifying the X/encounter structure most games follow (as a mana pool that refreshes X points per round spent not casting would be annoying to book keep, even though computers can do it instantly).

8)  Not really a game mechanical question so much as a magic mechanical question.  Could incorporating various ingredients make a spell cast faster?  Could reciting a spell like you're reading the side effects for Zoloft cast it faster?  What if a bard plays his song at twice the normal tempo?

I could see precasting spells into disposable items as a way of speeding up casting, but I don't want to venture into the territory of Vance here. Reciting a spell faster wouldn't make casting it faster; that may confuse the magic and cause it to go awry. A skilled caster could cast a spell faster by pumping more mana into it, though (if game mechanics could be made to make that fair).

9)  What about the time of day, the alignment of the stars, using additional materials, including sacrifices, utilizing sympethetic correspondences like having the target's blood, nails, hair, clothing, etc. present when casting, or contageons like voodoo dolls?

Those types of materials could aid in a ritual, but not in a spell. Spells are usually more simple and direct.

10)  Makes sense enough.  Can you anger the spirits by just being annoying with your magic?  Frex, always making air elementals brush the dirt from your path so your feet stay clean at all times or having water elementals ensure that your hair always has that ever-so-attractive wet, slicked-back look.  (I'd be annoyed if I was one of those elementals...)

You could very much anger the spirits for doing such things, but only if you were utilizing actual sentient spirits. The fire spirit who lives within a candle could care less how many times you ask him to ignite and extinguish; it is wholly unaware and doesn't even realize that it's slowly consuming its fuel. If you bind an air elemental to clean your path, and that elemental breaks free, you're going to have a very furious air elemental on your hands. Not all spirits are sentient, not all spirits are powerful, and not all powerful spirits are sentient.

12)  What's the difference between Psionics and Magic?  What about divine miracles....are they Magic also?  How do all of these differ?  Do they all require mana?  Do they all use it the same way?  Also, a Psion is a computer, an alien race from DC Comics, and a type of meson.  :p

Hah, well I want to avoid the word "psionics" because it sounds too modern (odd, because it's made of greek words, no?). As stated earlier, psionics is power from the self (like ki). Before 3E Psionics came out, I was using Sorcerers in this role. A sorcerer is someone with a mutation in their energy center (chakras) that causes them to draw in energy without willing it. Young sorcerers typically "learn" spells as a means of survival, a way to let the magic out; it is only through practice and study that they refine this and begin working with true magic. If I go with separate classes for the four "power sources", then they'll each have slightly different spheres of influence. They all use mana, but they do it in different ways. A psion/sorcerer/whatever-I-call-it converts the mana into power themselves. Arcanists force the spirits to do their will. Divine casters use the powers granted to them, while primal casters coax spirits to perform their spells. There's some overlap between them all, but their approaches to magic are so different that I think different classes is probably the way to go.

But I could easily scrap all of that and go with a Air, Earth, Fire, and Water mage class. I could divorce magic from churches, except for perhaps paladins, though most churches would employ non-fire "mages" as they could heal (a water effect). I'd have to scrap the thinking I did when I was purposefully making a "kitchen sink" D&D setting. It may just be preference at this point. Neither would be "original", though, as both have been done.

13)  Fair enough answer.  And you beat me to my followup questions, too.  :(

I don't know if it matters much to you, but despite my very definite ideas bout magic in my settings, I still manage to maintain such casters as bards, clerics, druids, mageblades, paladins, and other casters/gishes.  For instance, Bards have elevated their skill to magical levels; this is similar to how dwarves and other craftsmen create magic items - they're just THAT good.  Paladins are just channeling the will of their faith, so it's pretty much just miracles like the ones Clerics perform.  Druids are just Clerics of a different religion.  Mageblades just use some specialized magic that makes them more effective at combat.  Monks have elevated their skill level, just as Bards.  Wizards use magic.

[Humabout]

3) I still don't understand - in setting terms - why rituals differ from spells.  I get that they're slower and require ingredients, but how are they not a really slow spell anyone can possibly pull off?  Is there a material difference in how they function?  The reason I ask is that if there really isn't any fluff difference aside from speed, you might be abel to pull off one mechanic that covers both and allows a wider range of casting capabilit overall.

5) Cool.  I look forward to seeing what comes of this.

6)  So it's not just how big your mana pool it, but also how you well you can use it?

8)  Perhaps a given spell only ever needs a set amount of mana, but you can cast it slowly and efficiently or fast and sloppy.  The former uses the normal amount of mana, and the latter wastes a lot of energy to just put out the effect fast.

12)  It sounds like you have several things in play here:  an overall and unmutable mechanic for using magic, five elements, and several subtly different approaches.  If you keep it somewhat modular, you'll allow a lot of versatility in your casters.  You could have any of 20 different casting styles, all using the same mechanic with little work, actually.  I suppose the next question is this:  What are the differences in the capabilities of the magic of the different sources (arcane, divine, primal, psi/ki)?

~snicker~  Psi/Ki....hehehe

[sparkletwist]

I'm worried it could encourage everyone to have a bit of magic and discourage people from going magic-less, and I'm not sure that's the feeling I want.

I understand the feeling, but the problem is, magic in D&D (and rather close derivatives) is powerful. It's actually far more powerful than the Tolkien stuff that inspired it, giving rise to the old "Gandalf was only 5th level" rant. However, what this means is that it's really, really hard for magic-less classes to compete on the same playing field unless magic is heavily nerfed. Now, I don't know if a heavy nerf of magic is what you had in mind, but from your statement of "What can magic do? Almost anything" it seems like you don't really want to nerf it.

So, I thought the other answer would be to assume that everyone's a gish, and the most powerful and effective fighters have a few supernatural tricks up their sleeve in order to compete on somewhat of the same playing field. This could easily give things a wuxia or anime feel, but it doesn't necessarily have to-- supernatural strength, tenacity, and resolve could be the result of the powers, rather than flying leaps all over the battlefield.

Giving spellcasters, for instance, big encounter powers and weak at-wills

Or no at-wills, save for the most utilitarian of stuff. I like the idea of everything magical having to count, and everything being limited some way. If it's not limited by availability (encounter power or whatever) then perhaps by some sort of risk being involved in casting it, or some other thing that gives the spellcaster who would blow off the same power every turn a bit of pause. At that point it's not truly "at-will" either, because it's restricted by how far the casters are willing to push themselves/fate/the universe/their god/whatever.

[Xeviat]

3) I still don't understand - in setting terms - why rituals differ from spells.  I get that they're slower and require ingredients, but how are they not a really slow spell anyone can possibly pull off?  Is there a material difference in how they function?  The reason I ask is that if there really isn't any fluff difference aside from speed, you might be abel to pull off one mechanic that covers both and allows a wider range of casting capabilit overall.

Spells don't use "components", and they don't tend to produce permanent things. The mana in a ritual doesn't come from you, but from the components. Enchanting a wand to produce fire would involve coaxing or forcing a fire spirit to reside within it; you may soak the wand in alcohol and burn incense as part of the ritual. The distinction is also a gamist one born of wanting to compartmentalize combat from non-combat to a greater degree than D&D3rd did. It's also drawn from a sense of "this sounds right to me".

6)  So it's not just how big your mana pool it, but also how you well you can use it?

8)  Perhaps a given spell only ever needs a set amount of mana, but you can cast it slowly and efficiently or fast and sloppy.  The former uses the normal amount of mana, and the latter wastes a lot of energy to just put out the effect fast.

Hah! A big possibility on both parts.

12)  It sounds like you have several things in play here:  an overall and unmutable mechanic for using magic, five elements, and several subtly different approaches.  If you keep it somewhat modular, you'll allow a lot of versatility in your casters.  You could have any of 20 different casting styles, all using the same mechanic with little work, actually.  I suppose the next question is this:  What are the differences in the capabilities of the magic of the different sources (arcane, divine, primal, psi/ki)?

~snicker~  Psi/Ki....hehehe

Since I am still thinking in terms of, and leaning towards, the whole source descriptor, generally the way you'd expect them to be differed in D&D. Psi/Ki is either very evocative (and comes from the self, like breaths of fire) or intrinsically tied to manipulating the self (can heal one's self or otherwise affect one's physicality) or manipulating others (physically or mentally). Arcane handles the breadth of things, but it doesn't really do Æther (which includes healing, light, and other spiritually focused things). Divine is very good with Æther, mental, and physical, but it doesn't really handle the directly elemental (as divine power is intrinsically associated with mortals, coming from ancestral spirits, it effects mortals most). Primal is focused on things in nature, so elemental and physical would be their primary shtick. It may be possible to grid these four spheres of influence and either forbid one to each or give two to each.

----------------

Sparkle, I don't want everyone to be a gish, but you are touching on something I should have talked about far far earlier. I'd rather not weaken magic, but strengthen non-magic. A high level fighter doesn't throw around energy or other magical effects, but they are by their very nature, as high level, inherently magical.

The elements are not only the elements, but they are associated with the body and mind of living creatures. The exact natures are still somewhat up in the air as I keep fiddling with things, but someone's physical Strength is drawn from fire, their speed from air, their toughness from earth, and their coordination from water. Likewise, their mental abilities are associated with the elements (this is the part that keeps getting altered in my head). They don't know spells, but their power does make them more than a normal person.

The elements make up everything, so they make up one's body. Elemental energy is centered in chakras (I really want a western term for this). A tiny amount of mana flows in and out of people, through their chakras, but non-casters don't use it for anything other than their biological functions. As they grow in power, so do their chakras, so their biology adapts as well.

As for the caster differences, I could only abide by no at-wills if casting implements had basic attack type stuff built in; a wand lets you fire off rays of fire, for instance. I do not ever want to go back to the day where a wizard has to carry a crossbow at his side for when he runs out of spells; every single one of my players hated that.

[Humabout]

I guess you've answered most of the questions I have at the moment.  I'll lurk a bit and see if anything else sprouts up.  Over all, it strikes me that you will need a mixture of magical skills and a point pool for your mechanic.  The skills would govern success, speed, amount of energy points, and the limits of your capabilities, and the point pool would represent your mana reserve.  That's how I'd set it up, anyway.

6)  So it's not just how big your mana pool it, but also how you well you can use it?

8)  Perhaps a given spell only ever needs a set amount of mana, but you can cast it slowly and efficiently or fast and sloppy.  The former uses the normal amount of mana, and the latter wastes a lot of energy to just put out the effect fast.

Hah! A big possibility on both parts.

I stole #8 from Jim Butcher's Storm Front.  I nip off with lots of stuff.  Don't ever expect anything I say to be original ;)

Also, beware trying to amp up mundane combat to the power level of DnD magic.  You may find that is akin to how people periodically try to make unarmed combat as good of a choice as using firearms on the battlefield in Gurps games.  Guns are intrinsicly better than fists.  DnD magic is intrinsicly insanely potent - moreso than any believable axe swing will ever be.  If you're willing to depart from reality, that's fine, but it might get out of hand.

Another suggestion might be to make magic a swiss army knife and wizards simply really well-prepared people.  A fireball might not be able to level a castle and your lightning might not explode mountains, but whenever you find yourself in a sticky situation, you always have the right spell on hand.  It makes you that really tricky person to deal with and the one every party wants around, cuz you're just that useful.  A well-placed gust of wind blows your opponent off balance while you loosen the mortar that holds the stone slabs to the ceiling above his head.  Nothing particularly powerful, but it knocks him down and drops a really heavy rock on his head.  That sort of thing.

[Xeviat]

I'm totally willing to depart from reality. An epic fighter should be able to rend a mundane castle in two with his sword; that's what an epic game is about. A heroic wizard will also be considerably more grounded. I love the tiers of D&D4.

Even if I use the traditional classes of D&D, I am looking into ways of having "any spell" type variability.

Now, after all those questions Humabout, how about answering my first question, A or B:

Which class structure would you use, based on what you know of my setting:
A) Traditional D&D classes with some sort of elemental specialization mechanics if the player wants to specialize.
or
B) 4 Elemental classes (Air mage, Earth mage ...) with some sort of specialization mechanic for the caster's source of magic.

I'm heavily leaning towards A now, more so than at the beginning of this thread. The only thing making me consider leaning away is my desire to not have my books be "D&D", but that could be done away with by not using the words "Cleric", "Paladin", and "Ranger" I think ... "Priest", "Knight", and "Hunter" are far more generic.

[Humabout]

From what you've described, A is the way I'd go for sure.  It sounds like the power source has a greater influence on available elements and how those would get flavored.

[sparkletwist]

A high level fighter doesn't throw around energy or other magical effects, but they are by their very nature, as high level, inherently magical.

That makes sense. So it doesn't have to go so far as "everyone's a gish," but they do have certain magical talents that would not be thought of as totally "realistic." I guess that's all I was getting at, now that I think about it, really.

The exact natures are still somewhat up in the air as I keep fiddling with things, but someone's physical Strength is drawn from fire, their speed from air, their toughness from earth, and their coordination from water. Likewise, their mental abilities are associated with the elements (this is the part that keeps getting altered in my head).

That's interesting. Asura does something very similar. It uses the five elements of fire, air, earth, water, and void, and has five stats, each of which has an elemental association: Power with Fire, Grace with Air, Vitality with Earth, Senses with Water, and Mind with Void.

I do not ever want to go back to the day where a wizard has to carry a crossbow at his side for when he runs out of spells; every single one of my players hated that.

Oh, it's interesting that you and your group reacted so negatively to that. I have a totally different opinion which probably changes my perspective. I always liked it when wizards can, are able to, and have to do other things other than just fling spells around. Of course, in a system where magic is as powerful as D&D, it's probably a waste to try to develop any skills rather than have a perfectly optimized min/maxed wizard, but the idea is fun to me, and I like it in other systems.

[Xeviat]

I do not ever want to go back to the day where a wizard has to carry a crossbow at his side for when he runs out of spells; every single one of my players hated that.

Oh, it's interesting that you and your group reacted so negatively to that. I have a totally different opinion which probably changes my perspective. I always liked it when wizards can, are able to, and have to do other things other than just fling spells around. Of course, in a system where magic is as powerful as D&D, it's probably a waste to try to develop any skills rather than have a perfectly optimized min/maxed wizard, but the idea is fun to me, and I like it in other systems.

In something like d20 Modern, or something a little more ground level, I'd be totally fine with a wizard only having a few things and still relying on the mundane when their magic is out (or when they're conserving). I don't balk at Harry Dresden carrying a revolver, especially when that world's magic isn't supposed to be used to kill humans. I could also possibly be coerced into doing something like that during the Heroic tier, as it could make things both more "realistic" and it may help me tackle the issues of how magic would change the world.

Since the classes seem handled now, does anyone have thoughts on how D&D level magic would change the progression of the world? I want the world to be on the cusp of the Renaissance, but that doesn't mean humanity has to have been around the same amount of time. Perhaps what matters most to this is how hard it is to make permanent magic items. If a 1st level working-class spellcaster can make permanent torches for not too much money, then affluent areas are going to have city lights; if any 1st level fire specialist can walk down the street and light the lanterns at night, it's definitely going to be done.

But those are superficial things. What big things would change? I've already identified shipping, and I'm going to avoid that by having restrictions on that sort of teleportation (and long range teleportation will probably be paragon tier anyway). It seems like world leaders are going to end up being paragon, since any prolonged military campaign is going to give a lot of XP. I don't want the imagery of trains, but I assume minor magic could make airships and "horseless carriages" something that wouldn't be too rare.

Even if it doesn't relate to my setting, what are things that you think the existence of magic would change?

[Humabout]

Much of what started the rennaisance was the advancement of science, improved farming techniques that freed up laborers, the invention of the blast furnace for the mass manufacture of high-quality steel, and the proliferation of firearms.  I suppose the blast furnace (and consequently full suits of plate armor) could arise early due to magic, as could magically augmented farming.  Advances in science are, well, advances in science - not innately magical.  And I don't know if you want guns in your setting (I don't think you really do).  I suppose you could say the concept of the nation-state came into its own during the rennaisance, which saw the deterioration and eventual collapse of monarchies within about a couple hundred years.

I guess I should ask . . . wait for it . . . another QUESTION!  What exactly are you calling "cusp of the rennaissance?"  Rennaissance Europe didn't have trains or particularly improved transportation over what existed in the middle ages.  It didn't have any better communications, either.  Really, what it had, was science that allowed better navigation, improved metallurgical processes, and more people not producing food.  I guess it saw the advent of the middle class, really.  The result was a power shift from the nobility to a curious new class of merchants.

[EDIT]

Oh, and guns.  Those changed warfare as they became more reliable.