Wheel of Time RPG Magic System

[ericthecleric]

For those who've used that RPG, how did you find the magic system? Has anyone used it alongside standard magic-users in their D&D games- if so, did either system overshadow the other?

[Grimcleaver]

ericthecleric wrote:

For those who've used that RPG, how did you find the magic system? Has anyone used it alongside standard magic-users in their D&D games- if so, did either system overshadow the other?

First apparently it's nothing like it is in the books. I gleaned this from amidst the mad ravings of our GM who was ripping out his hair and spitting at the time. It's very much the D&D magic system in terms of spell prep and use with a few mods added in. Personally I liked it. I find the list of aptitudes and the individual spells to be fun and the ability to power up abilities to be a nice nod to the books. Our GM uses the spell list as a nothing more than a reference however and has worked on gutting and overhauling the whole magic system to make it more freeform and more like the novels. I think it would overlap nicely with the PHB spells if you're interested in doing that, though we haven't really used the spells as written in any games yet I can't see any immediate problems with doing it.

[Troy Taylor]

Wheel rpg magic is really overpowered when compared to standard D&D. In one respect, it's exactly like the magic from the Wheel books -- spellcasters are so powerful they are held in fear and awe by the general populous. Even novice spellcasters can cast some pretty powerful variantions of their spells.

There are restraints on the magic, which keep it in check, including a madness tainte for male spellcasters and the potential to overchannel and become burned out.

If you are looking for an alignment free game-- then the Wheel rpg magic is a good fit.

Theoretically, since both magic systems are d20, they could be used side-by-side in a campaign. But my gut says they shouldn't share the same game.

[Galin]

Being the referred to GM I guess I should throw in my 2 cents. First off, the system does make several modifications to the standard D&D mechanics to make magic feel more like the books present it. You can buff up spells by putting more oomph into them at will. Rules for over channeling and taint are provided as well. The spell list is also very authentic and really feels straight from the books. Having to choose affinities is also a nice touch. My problems with it are that it feels to restrictive. Shackling channelers with spell slots doesn’t feel like the books at all. A decent channeler in WoT can cast moderately powerful spells all day with a little effort. If anything the amount you can channel should be based on stamina or willpower. I’m in doubt over this actually, since frail old women can be potent channelers and channel for long durations. This is evidence in the willpower department. However, strenuous channeling can leave you weak and sweating profusely. Also Caudsuane makes the comment that the fatigue of extreme channeling can eventually kill. This is evidence in the stamina department. Also, there are no rules to cover the freeform casting that happens in WoT. Ability to channel, as stated in the books, relies on knowledge and need. Provisions are made to cover knowledge in the core rules, but not need. So, in my opinion the magic system as written in the WoT core book is gimped. The next question is if this is a bad thing? Personally I like to have the rules feel as much like the fiction as possible, but I have a very responsible group that I would have no problem with if I powered up a class. Not every GM is so blessed, so making a few concessions for game balance makes sense if you think about it. Even though I think the channeling system should be built from scratch I think the rules as written do a good job of making the D&D magic system feel more like the books.

As far as the WoT system and standard D&D magic working together, I think it could work. First off the rules and balance issues. At first glance it appears that channelers have all the advantages over arcane casters. They have the flexibility of the sorcerer (they don’t have to prepare spells) and they can pick up new spells even more easily than a wizard. All you have to do is see the spell being cast and make the appropriate skill check and bingo, new spell. The disadvantage being that you can’t learn from a scroll, only a teacher. This however is only a minor nuisance for the ability to take the spell that the BBEG just used on your party and throw it back at him next turn. Be warned however, as this can go both ways. Also channelers don’t have to use a spell book or spell components. Not only do they never have to worry about their spell book being destroyed or not having the right components, but no one will know that they are a channeler if they want their abilities kept a secret. Adding on this the fact that channeling does not involve physical components it is very hard to stop a channeler from channeling with mundane means. You can literally strip a channeler and chain him to a wall upside down while cramming an old sock in his mouth and he will be able to sling spells at you with no problem. This can be very unexpected too because there is a good chance you didn’t know he was a spell caster at all.

As I said, this all looks like an overwhelming advantage for channelers over their arcane brethren, so lets look at their disadvantages for a minute. Small stuff first, channelers can only channel where they can see. Darkness won’t stop them because they can see the threads that compose their spells even in pitch black. A blindfold will do the trick however. The first huge disadvantage channelers have (with raw) is with their spell slots. A channeler who wishes to bump up the damage their fireball deals can cast it at a higher level, consuming a higher level spell slot. Blamo, more damage. An arcane caster doesn’t have to. His spells go up in damage as he levels and becomes a better caster. At high levels an arcane caster’s fireball does apocalyptic damage using the same level spell slot it always has, the channeler has to use a much higher level spell slot for the same effect. If he wishes the arcane caster can use a higher level spell slot for metamagic effects because damage is already taken care of. Admittedly you could argue that the channeler already has a few metamagic abilities included in the package (still spell, silent spell), but I have to say that advantage here goes to the arcane caster. Lower level arcane slots get better over time while the channelers spell slots do not. The second big disadvantage comes in if you restrict a channeler to the spell list out of WoT. Some of the spells out of WoT are impressive, but there are many effects the arcane caster takes for granted which channelers can only dreams about. For example, there are no channeler spells that can emulate polymorph, undead control, soul binding, size changing or a host of other abilities. Also resurrection is a big no no. Other abilities that come easily to an arcane caster are considered “lost weaves” in WoT. This means that although the spell exists, it is not accessible to most PCs. Even high level characters will have difficulty acquiring these spells. Effects that fall into this category include flight, mind control, teleportation (which even if you know in WoT can still be a hassle) and several of the high powered combat spells (Bale Fire comes to mind. Think beam of insta-death, no save, no resurrection which burns you back through time, undoing recent actions. Thank goodness it’s a lost weave). Even though channelers do have some very powerful spells at their disposal versatility is a big advantage for arcane casters. Another disadvantage is that channelers receive no item creation feats. While magic items are available in setting, the knowledge of how to create them has been lost for millennia and is only now on the cusp of being rediscovered. In summery I think that channelers have some strong advantages, but have enough disadvantages to balance them out with arcane spell casters.

The second concern with integrating the two systems is with setting continuity. The metaphysics behind channeling are wholly unique to the WoT setting and would need some tlc to fit into any of the D&D cosmologies. Also channeling introduces some completely new planes that would need to be fit in, or the spells regarding them discarded. The world of dreams wouldn’t be too hard to mesh in as it seems to be coterminous with the prime material plane and you could say that skimming takes you through the shadow plane. Where channelers draw their power from would also need to be addressed, as well as whether or not male channelers are subject to taint. Maybe channelers draw their power straight from the elemental plains, which would explain the four elemental affinities. Spirit could be drawn from the prime material plane seeing as spirit deals very much with humanity. If you wanted to port over taint as well you could have male channelers be cursed by some demon or evil god (to keep things close to the books). Or you could have women draw their power from the elemental planes and prime material plane through the positive energy plane and men though the negative energy plane. This would explain the different sensations felt by male and female channelers as well as give a good explanation for madness (constant exposure to power tainted by negative energy drives men mad). The next concern that comes to mind has to do with magic items. Magic items in general weaken the relative position of channelers compared to mundanes. In WoT angreal and sa’angreal(magic boosters and BIG magic boosters respectively) can only be used by channelers and about 75% of ter’angreal (think wonderous items) must have raw magic channeled into them to work. The 25% that don’t tend to be the weaker ones. In the magic weapons department +3 swords with no enchantments are the most powerful thing currently available. Being put in a setting where anyone might have a wand of “insert deadly spell” or be decked out with magic plate armor evens out the playing field quite a bit. If you decided to port in WoT magic items you could treat them like psionic restricted items, but just for channelers. You would have to decide if you wanted to treat ter’angreal in the same manner or let arcane casters use them as well. Also you would have to decide if you wanted to retain the no item creation ban or not.

Wow, that was long winded. A bit more than two cents worth I'm afraid. If you are still reading this post I salute you. You must have taken the great fortitude feat at some point in your life. Anyways, it’s been therapeutic to get this all off my chest. This has actually interested me in trying to mix the two systems in a home brew at some time or another (after our group finishes all the other home brews we want to do :). Well, I hope these rambling suggestions help you Eric if you ever do decide to throw the two systems together.

[ericthecleric]

Thanks to the three of you for your comments, especially Galin for your extra-long (and well thought out) post. Your replies were interesting. I agree that the magic system has a good “book” feel.
Galin, I also like the fact that you wrote your reply so that people who aren’t familiar with the Wheel of Time RPG might learn something about it. It’s taken me a few days to write this, and my server wouldn’t give me access to the internet last night.
Yes, I think I must have picked up Great Fortitude somewhere along the line. Last year was my worst year ever. Last year, my godmother and mother were both diagnosed with cancer (and both have been treated this year, successfully, I’m happy to say). My best friend died last year, and went missing for six weeks (on Valentine’s Day weekend) before her body was found. And, I had other issues to deal with, like having a really bad time at work through things that were nothing to do with me. So, I guess you could say I’m a survivor. ;-)
This post is a bit long (and rambling), at 1796 words, but I hope you find it helpful. Let me know what you think. If you do run this campaign idea, do let me know how it turns out, by posting on this thread.
Many of the new types of magic (from Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, [Expanded] Psionics Handbook, and so on) don’t require spellbooks, spell components, or whatnot, so I wouldn’t worry about channelers being “overpowered” because they don’t have spell compenents, etc.
As to “fitting in” (with a home-brew campaign), one easy way to do it is have several continents which have the various magical types. For instance, the main continent (“Continent A”)- where you plan to set most of your campaign, for example- might be mostly the standard magic types from the PH (cleric, wizard, et al), possibly with a few others, depending on what books you have access to. Continent B might be the primary home of channelers, Continent C the primary home of incarnum users and binders, and Continent D the primary home of psionic classes, shadowcasters and truenamers.
Even if you (as DM) know you’ll almost certainly never use shadowcasters or truenamers, at least you’ll know where they exist in your campaign world if you change your mind. Using this continental style is good, because even though the players might or might not know that other types of magic exist, their characters won’t necessarily know much about them, if anything (for example, “The other continents have them weirdo magicks. I don’t know much about them.”)
Then, involving other characters/classes (who use the other magic types) is easy. All the continents should have trade missions/ghettos/plots of land (much like the Atha’an Miere are supposed to get), where people of all types from those continents exist. You should have a different parcel of land (or several) for each continent. That way, characters of all sorts based in those trade missions, can then spread out and explore. You can create all sorts of parties this way, or have all sorts of encounters.
On the cosmological angle, this is also easy to deal with. Assume that the home-brew campaign takes place in a parallel world (of your own design); there’s a lot of good stuff in the Wheel of Time books, so there’s no need to throw it all out. So, keep the Creator, the Dark One, the Forsaken, etc. (Continent B might have the “wetlands” and The Waste).
With the parallel world idea, you can have everything else you want; ie. the standard D&D cosmology, standard D&D monsters, demon lords (who “work for” the Dark One), etc. You should also decide which D&D monsters have the Shadowspawn type (certainly, all evil outsiders, evil undead, and many aberrations), and allow rangers to choose “Shadowspawn” and maybe “Darkfriends” as available favored enemies. Creatures with the “Shadowspawn” subtype should also have the “Evil” subtype.
If you have Heroes of Horror, I’d recommend using the “Taint of Evil” rules from pages 62-67 of that book, and using that instead of the madness rules from the Wheel of Time RPG. Besides, there are some nice prestige classes (like the Tainted Scholar) that could be used with Darkfriend channelers (male or not) or magic-users.
I suggest adding a third god, maybe the wife of the Creator, who is responsible for- and the source of- all magic in the parallel world (like Mystra in the Forgotten Realms). Divine casters in such a variant either revere nature or different concepts (although you could always have it that they worship “fake” gods, where the power unknowingly comes from the third goddess). Magic types are therefore just different “flavors”. If you have the Forgotten Realms Sourcebook (although maybe the feat appears elsewhere), you should also include the Shadow Weave Magic feat for “standard” magic-users, the rationale being that the Shadow Weave is maintained by the Dark One for some Darkfriend “standard” magic-users.

Magic Items: I’d ensure that channelers have normal wealth for PCs or NPCs, otherwise they’d be disadvantaged way too much. I wouldn’t allow them Item Creation feats.
Angreals might have a market value of 20,000 gp for +1, 40,000 gp for +2, and 70,000 gp for +3; Sa’angreal might have a market value of 100,000 gp for +4, and 130,000 gp for +5. These costs are derived from the ring of wizardry, in case you’re wondering, although I’ve made them up for comparison purposes; they’d almost never be sale on the open market. You’d almost certainly not want sa’angreal of +6 or higher value, for game balance reasons; at the very least, they’d be (major) artefacts. It shouldn’t be possible for other magic-users to make angreal and sa’angreal- there should be a limited supply; although, if it is possible, that could be part of the reason that the channelers are on other continents, ie. trading for angreal that wizards have made. If you want terangreal in the game, you’ll have to price them on a case-by-case basis, but it’s probably best if you only price them for terangreal you plan to include.

Alignment: Many classes require alignments, and without them, spells like holy aura and unholy blight won’t work. So, retain alignments for classes that need them, although you could drop elements that aren’t required. For example, monks might be just “lawful”. Creatures that are “always” (and maybe “usually” also) alignment X should still have those alignments. Retain alignment subtypes as well. Anything else won’t need alignment, but should be treated as neutral for certain spell effects. Alignment actually MEANS something then (for those that have one), and it means that you can use alignment-based spells, equipment, damage reduction, etc. Evil creatures or characters are actually EVIL (and ultimately serve the Dark One), while those without alignments can be nice or nasty. Part of the point of the exercise is to mix the two systems- and if alignment isn’t kept, at least along the lines described above- part of standard D&D’s magical flavor is lost.

Experience: You should probably award XP as story awards rather than for killing monsters. For example, if your PCs get to high levels, and you send 10,000 trollocs against them, which your PCs destroy with channelling, that’d otherwise be a LOT of XPs!!

Learning Weaves: Because any channelers would have less opportunities to learn weaves, because they shouldn’t encounter rival/enemy channelers constantly, you might consider the following. Allow initiate channelers to figure out/learn one weave per level after 1st-level, or two per level after 1st-level for wilders. And/or, give them a mentor, who teaches them weaves every so often.

Campaign Focus: PC channelers might initially be tasked with exploring continent B, and/or tasked to find angreal and sa’angreal for their mentor or tradition. Later on, the channeler(s) or party might be given the task of hunting down Darkfriend magic-users (channelers or otherwise) on continent B. If you have a male channeler, maybe he was trained by Logain before he was initially captured, or he was trained at the Black Tower.

Are you familiar with the psionic system? You might want to consider the following. In that system, characters have an increasing amount of Power Points which they can spend on psionic powers. The power point cost is 1 for 1st-level spells, 3 for 2nd-level spells, 5 for 3rd-level spells, 7 for 4th-level spells, 9 for 5th-level spells, 11 for 6th-level spells, 13 for 7th-level spells, 15 for 8th-level spells, and 17 for 9th-level spells. Extrapolating, higher-level weaves would cost +2 PPs per spell level (21 for 11th-level weaves, for example).
On this PP cost basis, based on the spells per level, initiates and wilders would have the following PPs per class level:
Class
Level Initiate Wilder
1 1 1
2 2 4
3 5 10
4 9 13
5 14 20
6 22 26
7 29 38
8 41 45
9 51 62
10 67 74
11 81 81
12 101 99
13 119 120
14 143 130
15 165 154
16 202 183
17 230 201
18 230 222
19 292 250
20 324 264

The 230 PP figure for level 17 and 18 initiates is correct- they have the same number of slots at those levels.

As you can see from the table, initiates get fewer PPs earlier on, but more later on, while wilders get more PPs earlier on, but fewer later on and earlier access to weaves and automatically learn weaves.

Regarding bonus weaves, I suggest the character doesn’t get extra Power Points, but retains the extra slots, which MUST be used for those spell-levels. For example, a wilder with Wis 14, Cha 14 would get two extra 1st-level weave slots and two extra 2nd-level weave slots once they become a 2nd-level wilder. For ease of book-keeping, the first weaves of the relevant weave level(s) should probably be the bonus weaves.

With 0-level weaves, I’d just let the channelers use those weaves the listed number of times per day (4 for initiates, 2-6 for wilders) at no PP cost.

I’d allow overchanneling (but ignore the “with no slots left” phrasing for 0-2 level weaves; ie. let the channeler try overchanneling when they want, or use PPs). I wouldn’t bother with the “can’t spend more PP’s per round than class level”, because that would mean overchanneling couldn’t take place.

You might decide not to bother with the Power Point system I’ve suggested above. As it is though, the existing rules are quite flexible though- ie. channelers can use higher-level slots for lower-level weaves, or (with overchanneling) cast higher level weaves with lower-level slots. I’ve suggested the Power Point system in case the baseline system’s not enough for you.

[ericthecleric]

Two other points I meant to mention.
CR/EL- You’ll probably want to work out normal CR ratings for the Myddraals and other Shadowspawn, so you know how to fit them in with other monsters.
Metamagic feats- I’d allow a channeler to pick up Empower Spell, Heighten Spell, and Maximize Spell for their channelling (and maybe a few other metamagic feats), with casting time affected like a sorcerer. If you have it that bonus weaves were “fixed”, ie. prepared, you might even allow Quicken Spell (but then they would work as normal, quickened spells).

[Sel Carim]

ericthecleric wrote:

Yes, I think I must have picked up Great Fortitude somewhere along the line. Last year was my worst year ever. Last year, my godmother and mother were both diagnosed with cancer (and both have been treated this year, successfully, I’m happy to say). My best friend died last year, and went missing for six weeks (on Valentine’s Day weekend) before her body was found. And, I had other issues to deal with, like having a really bad time at work through things that were nothing to do with me. So, I guess you could say I’m a survivor. ;-)

Wow, worst year indeed. My sincere condolences for you losses. I'm glad you were able to hang on though, may you keep on surviving. Don't give up!

On a lighter note, I really like the idea of using power points. Its quick and simple, yet gives the game mechanics a feel closer to the feel of the novel.

[Adam Daigle]

Being a long time RJ fan I was stoked to see this post. I never read much of the WoT d20 book because I didn't want to see anything weaken the three-time read image from the series I have in my head. (though it was interesting to see the stats as related to the cahracters in the series)

Anyway, in my current Greyhawk campaign, I have as the antagonists a group of pure Suel who think the Brotherhood isn't doing enough to re-establish their superiority on Oerth. From building this storyline I have used elements of the Seanchan to include a mod of the A'dam.

The one thing I loved about the literature that I have yet seen replicated really well into a gaming group/session is the strict social system. Many choices in the books are based off 'what would be proper/right (while 'weaving' in advantageous). All too often players do not give proper regard to customs of action, and with many parties demanding this diminishes their 'fun'

I'm getting off topic, but the gist of what I was intending to say was that the series is way better than any game system will provide and use elements of it as needed. Anything more than a sprinkle will require a new rules system.

[ericthecleric]

Sel Carim, thanks for the kind words! When a string of bad things happens to you and/or your friends and family, you really know who your friends are.
I'm glad you liked the power point idea. I don't know if it would be balanced or not though.

[Galin]

ericthecleric wrote:

Last year was my worst year ever.

First off, my condolences for your bad year. It sounds like you had a rough one. My Grandmother died of cancer a few years back, so I have at least some idea of the emotional roller coaster that must have put you through. As to your friend dying, that is truly lamentable, I hope 2006 goes better for you. Best wishes Eric, keep on hanging in there.

Sorry it took me so long to write this post, it’s been a busy week. Among several other things I was madly trying to prepare for the next session of Saritiel (posted in campaign journals if you are interested), one of the campaigns me and my group are doing right now. We all have bizarre schedules and since none of us like NPCing absent players’ characters we have (at least :) one game for each different combination of people who could show up. We like variety, so this works well for us.

Thanks for the well written and researched post, you have given me several things to chew on. I never though about using the psionic rules to cover channelers, but right off the bat they just feel better than using spell slots. One of the players in my group has the expanded psionics handbook, so I am going to see if he will let me borrow it for a little bit. From what you have posted I think that a power point system has a much better chance of making channeling feel like the book than the WoT RAW. Elemental affinities seem to transfer very smoothly to such a system. Just reduce or increase spell level for purposes of spell cost depending on the elemental affinities the character possesses. I don’t have Heroes of Horror, but I will go and look it up. It sounds intriguing, especially considering the love of horror in general that my group tends to have. Anything that could make it easier to run dark friends and such would be very welcome as well. I have had the hardest time finding cannon information on how dark friends operate, chose and accomplish goals, structure command, anything. The books only give you a few glimpses into their order. In light of this, colorful ideas like the tainted scholar really help the cause. In case you (or any other GM) is having the same problem, here’s what I have found out thus far. Dark friends operate in cells, much like modern terrorists. As such they tend to be isolated from each other informationaly, thus if one group is discovered the overall damage done is not severe. The fewer leads to other cells the better. Recruiting is fairly simple. Members of the cell always have an ear open for disillusioned members of whatever nation they belong too. Especially those disillusioned with Creator worship. If they catch word of such a person, they keep a close eye on them to assess the candidates for acceptance. Once it is decided that a candidate would make a good member of the cell, an invitation is offered. If the invitation is accepted, world = +1 dark friend, if it is not accepted..... As an interesting side note, dark friends shun atheists like the plague. If there is no Creator, then what is binding the Dark One? And if nothing is binding the Dark One, then why haven’t we been rewarded yet? Moral quandaries just aren’t there cup of tea. If you or anyone else has any additional info it would be appreciated.

You brought up a couple of points which I hadn’t thought about. First being shadow spawn. I think adding shadow spawn as a subtype could work, using a template might work too. “A creature with the shadow spawn template changes their alignment to evil and is now vulnerable to any spell with the shadow spawn descriptor” or something like that. The second was alignment. Thinking about it I have to agree with you that the main ruck and run of WoT are neutral. I totally agree with you that throwing out alignment is a bad idea, as it is a very intrinsic part of the D&D universe. As far as the channeling classes go, I would say that initiates tend toward lawful, and wilders tend toward chaotic, neither with tendencies toward good or evil. Even so, I don’t think either class should have an alignment requirement. With only two channeling classes I think that would be too restrictive.

I also like the idea to regionalize different magical traditions. It gives the chance to add some cultural flavor to things, and if enough teachers are scattered throughout the world you don’t loose diversity of choice for the players. I also like the idea that some traditions have to rely on each other for magic items. This lays the ground work for some interesting inter-tradition politics.

Thank you for the many useful suggestions, you have given me a lot to mull over. Sorry again for taking so long to post this and good luck with running your setting.

[ericthecleric]

Thanks for the kind words, everyone. I’m glad you like the ideas. :-)
I only asked “are you familiar with the psionic system?” to see if you knew about using Power Points. The Unearthed Arcana also has a variant power point system for use with clerics and wizards etc., but I think it would be more interesting to keep the various traditions using their own magic. As I explained what the point costs would be (and PPs available per level), you don’t have to look up the Expanded Psionics Handbook unless you want to.
With magic system transparencies, I’d allow detect magic and dispel magic to affect the One Power, and also allow Ward Against the One Power to work against the magic of other traditions, (and similar effects like spell resistance, etc).
After I put the original post up, I re-read the various channelling weaves. It seems that channelers are the absolute best at Warding and large-scale effects (even though they inflict relatively little damage), but not so good at anything else, so a group of characters (whether PCs or NPCs) including magic-users from different traditions would probably work well.
Regarding Darkfriends, shortly after the WoT RPG came out, I emailed one of the authors about just the subject you raised, namely, what powers do they gain? That was on my old computer, which I no longer have, but the gist of his answer was that maybe Darkfriends DON’T get any special powers. Ie, the Darkfriends are basically conned into serving the Dark One with false promises. That view bears merit, in that once someone is a Darkfriend- and have performed various evil deeds- that person doesn’t really get much of a choice about not serving the Dark One, namely, “serve or die!”.
The “taint” scores in Heroes of Horror are for corruption (physical deformity) and depravity (mental deformity), and a character’s Con and Wis scores, respectively, reflect how much taint he can take before dying. Before dying, a character gains increasingly severe deformities, which are hidden by the tainted scholar class (except when they are in especially evil, tainted areas). There’s also a “corrupt avenger” PrC, which is a non-evil tainted warrior-type character, but really you should just make them villains instead. The tainted scholar PrC should also only be used for villains.
You could always invent your own granted powers for Darkfriends. If you do, please post them on this thread. The tained scholar and corrupt avenger PrCs are probably good PrCs for such NPCs, although you could also give some Darkfriends the half-fiend, or even better, the unholy scion template (also from Heroes of Horror) to further contrast good-guy PCs from vile villains (and the merely naughty).