First, I felt this could go in the rules section, but I am looking for philosophical discussion as well as potential rules adjustments. That said...
Should magic have consequences/limitations(beyond the numerical)?
I was proofing a friend's book and realized his characters, potent magicians, still cook and clean by hand. Why wouldn't they use magic to quickly prepare their meals, and clean up afterward? Because magic in his world is chaotic and unpredictable, rather than the perfect computer accuracy with which spells are cast in D&D. One can cast a simple spell, lose control, and annihilate an entire college campus.
That got me thinking: There don't seem to be ANY consequences for casting magic in the D&D/Pathfinder construct(excepting certain spells). You point and shoot, with little or no cost. Material components generally get handwaved or Eschewed, and the hour per day of prep is integrated into normal rest time. Level 13+ sucks mostly because magic(though magic items as well) is unrestricted. If Save-or-Die extended to both the caster and the target, would you think twice about Disintegrating an enemy? If a fireball could backfire, would that limit it's use?
Moving forward, how could this be handled from a rules perspective? I'm interested in providing a consequence to spellcasting, partially for balance purposes, but mainly to create a world in which magic is valuable and rare.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The simplest, and probably best, answer is:
Because Pathfinder is a game, and your friend's novel is a book.
What do I mean by that? Well, every medium has certain strengths. One of the strengths of a book is that the author controls 100% of the actions and consequences within the book. That means magic can have wild and unpredictable side effects for even minor spells without ruining the entire experience. However, games do not share that strength (indeed, they would not be games at all if anyone had absolute control over the entire game; games require actions and consequences, and if you control everything, there are no consequences to your actions). In a game, if your character stands a chance to blow up the local area whenever he casts a spell, basic statistics will tell you that eventually your character will unintentionally blow up the local area. That's not fun (especially to the mage's companions).
Another reason is that mages just plain wouldn't get used. Take a look at Arcane Spell Failure for an example of this: ASF is a small chance for any spell you cast which has a Somatic component to fail. This is essentially the same thing as your "magic with consequences" concept except less dangerous. How many mages have you ever seen in any game ever wear armor with an actual Arcane Spell Failure chance? I've never seen even one unless they had some way to Still Spell most or all of their spells (and thus avoid ASF). It'd be even worse with your idea, because on top of not getting the spell off, actively bad things would happen.
Throw out the magic system and replace it.
My first suggestion would be Pact Magic by Radiance House - Its sold as a PDF here at Paizo. (I have no connection with them)
Pact magic has your spellcaster attempt to bind a spirit each day that gives him\her powers. Want a more powerful spirit you can try for a combat of wills but you better win......
The problem for 3.X, including Pathfinder, is that there is really no economy underlying the world. It is not a Simulation but an heroic escapade reflecting the Heroes in their glory. Heroes don't generally pay consequences.
For example, a DM might reasonably say 'I will enforce spell components' to lend realism to the game. The players logical response is... "I have skills and contacts, I want to know where all the ________ are and how to get them.
The poor DM is left sputtering because he doesn't have a simulation that will tell him where all the cockatrices, and beholders, and unicorns and 1000gp diamonds are. He cannot feed the player information in anything like an organic way. Basically, instead of relying on the world outside of the Player he is basing all his decisions on how helpful he is willing to be. The player senses this and it doesn't ring true.
3.X is a fun game but you can't make it into something its not. It's not realistic.
Sigurd
one thing i always felt was that it was too easy to cast a spell, i have always envisioned spell casters straining them selves when they cast spells.
one thing i have always wanted to see was a high chance of exhausting your self when you cast a spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think at one point in time we all kind of go through the mental exercise of trying to envision the "perfect" way to portray aspects of fantasy. I used to think it would be really cool to see spellcasters making checks to cast spells or keeling over if they pushed themselves, etc.
In the end, it complicates the game and pushes people away from playing casters. For an example, my friends and I played the old Lankhmar products for AD&D in a campaign for a while. In that setting, all of the casting times "moved up," so that if you had a spell that took a round to cast, for example, it took a minute to cast, and one that took a minute took 10 minutes, and 10 minutes an hour, etc.
While it did, somewhat, mimic how magic worked in the novels (you could still do major spells, but they rarely ever went off in combat, for example), no one ever wanted to play a spellcaster of any kind.
Now, given that in the Fafhrd and Mouser books or Conan the protagonists don't primarily rely on magic, this isn't a bad thing if you want your setting to emulate those kinds of settings, if you want to have the same "baseline" feel as standard d20 Fantasy, its not going to "just add flavor," its going to really change feel of the game.
Changing how magic works is fine, just remember that its going to really create a different feel in the setting.
What you are actually trying to do is give a mechanical reason to prevent players from casting their spells. You are nerfing spell casters in general.
The easiest way to do it is to just apply a spell failure chance and base it on the level of the spell vs the spell caster's level. With no way to lessen it (except to level up).
Pick a percentage to start with. For easy math I'll use 50%. Each time your character learns a new spell level, each spell level below that drops by 10%.
SO, by 6th level spells, 1st level spells can be cast without penalty. When you can finally cast 9th level spells, your 4th level spells lose all penalty, and your highest level spells ALWAYS Have a high chance of failure.
Then all you have to do is choose a "failure". You can either use a chart, have the spell always fizzle, or have the spell always reverse to some benefit of the enemy/problem to the caster (depending on the spell).
Keep in mind though all you are really going to end up doing is making encounters substantially harder while also probably reducing the number of casters in the party. I know a DM of mine once decided to "make spell casting harder" and after explaining all the rules to us, the party rolled out without any casters in it. No one wanted to play the casters with such an onerous burden.
-S
edited for math
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this the premise behind Dark Sun?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what D&D/Pathfinder does--I think the limitations are adequate. There are limits to the times per day spells can be cast, concentration and caster level checks, and so on. Applying more than temporary penalties (I have sent a party through a Wild Magic zone, but not on a regular basis) ends up making the players feel like they're being punished for choosing the class they did, which is not good GAME design. Story design for a novel may be different, as already well discussed.
I have seen different magic systems with different costs and requirements, but it's just a matter of swapping one for another. You need a playable, desirable magic system for an RPG, not one that makes people frustrated.
For the record, my favorite magic system I've seen for a d20 system was for Slayers d20, by the sadly now-defunct Guardians of Order. The spells you knew took up "slots" based on your Int and character classes. You could cast these spells an unlimited number of times per day, but every time you cast a spell, you had to make a Will and a Fortitude Save, one to make sure you controlled the spell (otherwise it might fizzle or go out of control), one to resist being drained by the spell (you would become fatigued, then exhausted, etc.). Easy spells had low save DCs, but the difficult, devastating spells had VERY high save DCs--you could destroy the region and knock yourself out or worse if you failed casting.
It should be kept in mind that the system in question was for a high-magic, fairly light-hearted campaign world. But I thought it had a lot of potential.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this the premise behind Dark Sun?
No, in Dark Sun everytime you cast a spell you destroyed patches of land. The bigger the spell, the more land got destroyed. But the casters and the spells they could cast weren't hindered, if i recall. And psionics (the main power in Dark Sun) went entirely unhindered.
There were no direct consequences for your character casting a spell except for a little moral conundrum. And if anyone saw you casting a spell, they tried to kill you.
|
With the spell system the way it is, adding an extra level of failure would make any caster an NPC class because no player would touch it.
If, however, you instituted a "spell point" system where you could rest for a bit to regain your points, or even an automagically recharging variant, this might not be so bad. However, I might add that spells already have a few layers of failure- Arcane Spell Failure, although that rarely comes up; Casting Defensively, or anything that forces a concentration check since those are a bit harder to pass than they used to; Save DCs and to-hit rolls, since even if you cast the spell it still might not have any effect or you might miss. Adding another chance to screw it up just punishes the players, and although it might increase immersion slightly, it will ultimately detract from the fun of the game for anyone playing said casters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the spell system the way it is, adding an extra level of failure would make any caster an NPC class because no player would touch it.
If, however, you instituted a "spell point" system where you could rest for a bit to regain your points, or even an automagically recharging variant, this might not be so bad. However, I might add that spells already have a few layers of failure- Arcane Spell Failure, although that rarely comes up; Casting Defensively, or anything that forces a concentration check since those are a bit harder to pass than they used to; Save DCs and to-hit rolls, since even if you cast the spell it still might not have any effect or you might miss. Adding another chance to screw it up just punishes the players, and although it might increase immersion slightly, it will ultimately detract from the fun of the game for anyone playing said casters.
Wow, no one had fun from 1974 until 2000. Gotcha.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody realized they weren't having fun because they didn't have the "Fun Police" to tell them it wasn't fun yet.
Wow, no one had fun from 1974 until 2000. Gotcha.
Well, it's a good thing they did show up. I am so ashamed I was having badwrongfun playing magic users all those years.
;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Various settings have toyed with 'dangerous magic,' ranging from Dark Sun's defiling to Ravenloft's 'powers checks,' but D&D really hasn't gone too far in that direction.
Sanity checks (from Call of Cthulhu) or fatigue checks or taking-damage-from-casting mechanics are other ways to simulate such a system, perhaps using the 'Strain' mechanic from the Complete Psychic Handbook from Green Ronin (either nonlethal damage for casting spells, roughly equating to 1 hp / level of the spell, if converted to standard spellcasting, or make a Fort (or Will) save each time you cast a spell or become Winded, Fatigued or Exhausted).
Dragon Age, and similar 'magic is inherently tainted' settings (such as the pre-cleansing Wheel of Time channeling mechanic for male channelers) might have other effects, such as temporary fits of madness or possession or deformities occuring as a result of tapping into otherworldly forces.
Ideally, to avoid *totally* reworking the entire system, I'd be inclined to have 'powers checks' (of whatever sort, whether nonlethal damage, fatigue levels, other conditions such as sickness / nausea, temporary madness / confusion / possession, deformities, etc.) only apply to the highest level spells one can cast. A 1st level Wizard would be able to use his cantrips with minimal or zero risk of mischance, but his 1st level spells would represent sanity-shattering mysteries that he has just barely begun to dabble in, and could be as much of a risk to him as to his targets. By 5th level, he regards those sleep spells as trivial, while the forbidden temporal manipulations of the slow spell is the new dangerous and exciting toy he has yet to master...
Magic would become more 'magical' and exotic and dangerous at the higher ends of one's ability, while the stuff one learned several levels ago has become rote and 'old hat.' There might still be a Spellcraft check to cast those lower-level spells, but a failure would just be annoying, and not potentially dangerous, unlike the castings of your highest-level spells, where you could end up stunning yourself, harming yourself, or utterly losing control of the magic and sending it in the wrong direction.
In this sort of setting, where magic is unpredictable and dangerous, I'd be strongly tempted to make it harder to resist (and utterly ditch Spell Resistance, for most creatures), as it only makes sense that if magic becomes more tricky and dangerous for the spellcasters, it should also be more tricky and dangerous for their targets. One way to do this might be to restore Save-Or-Dies to their previous (2e and 3.0) potency in such a campaign. A 5th level Wizard casting Hold Person has a chance of paralyzing himself, taking damage, suffering Wisdom damage, becoming confused, etc. but the spell, if he does make that Spellcraft check and accept those risks, is not going to get broken on the second round. It's going to hold that target helpless in coils of malign enchantment for 5 rounds, forced to watch helplessly while the cackling spellcaster sharpens his dagger for the inevitable throat-slitting coup de grace.
|
|
I'm sorry, I guess I really need to learn to censor myself before I get sarcastic a-holes jumping over my effing post.
Replace any instance of "players" in my post with "I" or "me" or "from my personal experience"... Any better? I didn't know that I had to put that tag-line to avoid people taking shots at me for expressing my opinion that corresponds with what other people have stated upwards in the thread... thanks for picking me out over the people that said the exact same thing
Keep in mind though all you are really going to end up doing is making encounters substantially harder while also probably reducing the number of casters in the party. I know a DM of mine once decided to "make spell casting harder" and after explaining all the rules to us, the party rolled out without any casters in it. No one wanted to play the casters with such an onerous burden.
Frankly characters in books feeling that the rules of the world are treating them unfairly aren't much of a concern, but players of a game complaining about the rules being unfair is a major problem.
Applying more than temporary penalties (I have sent a party through a Wild Magic zone, but not on a regular basis) ends up making the players feel like they're being punished for choosing the class they did, which is not good GAME design.
|
The argument that potential to glitch will ruin magic systems doesn't really work because there are other RPG magic systems out there that have implemented it and it works (and is fun). Generally what they do is balance the chances of a spell glitching with the chance that a spell might be far more potent. Alpha Omega has a system where casters can glitch, I think shadowrun has similar chances of glitching.
The vancian system is too structured to fit this model comfortably but you could probably put some element of chance into casting. The biggest problem I see with it is it adds rolls and overhead to the already cumbersome casting process.
|
|
Various settings have toyed with 'dangerous magic,' ranging from Dark Sun's defiling to Ravenloft's 'powers checks,' but D&D really hasn't gone too far in that direction.
No, D&D started there (casting in combat was suicide, aging effects for casting certain spells, etc) and has moved away from that stance as collective mary sue storytelling eclipsed any kind of game elements, eventually leading to the 3x paradigm of Wizards OWN the Game after level x. Yes, certain 2e settings toyed with "dangerous" magic, but that all occurred after Cook removed most of the danger in the first place.
OD&D/1e actually had Vancian casting (that is, magic based on the works of Jack Vance, not just spell slots). The only thing Vancian about 3x/Pf spell casting is spell memorization.
|
|
I'm sorry, I guess I really need to learn to censor myself before I get sarcastic a-holes jumping over my effing post.
Replace any instance of "players" in my post with "I" or "me" or "from my personal experience"... Any better? I didn't know that I had to put that tag-line to avoid people taking shots at me for expressing my opinion that corresponds with what other people have stated upwards in the thread... thanks for picking me out over the people that said the exact same thing
Keep in mind though all you are really going to end up doing is making encounters substantially harder while also probably reducing the number of casters in the party. I know a DM of mine once decided to "make spell casting harder" and after explaining all the rules to us, the party rolled out without any casters in it. No one wanted to play the casters with such an onerous burden.Frankly characters in books feeling that the rules of the world are treating them unfairly aren't much of a concern, but players of a game complaining about the rules being unfair is a major problem.Applying more than temporary penalties (I have sent a party through a Wild Magic zone, but not on a regular basis) ends up making the players feel like they're being punished for choosing the class they did, which is not good GAME design.
You were last. Sorry about your luck.
|
|
It you were just making casting harder, I would be against it unless you made swinging a sword (or anything else, for that matter) more difficult (or more dangerous). The current system works, and if you want to make spellcasting more difficult without making everything else more difficult, then I think you need to do a balancing act. If casting is harder, there must be some intrinsic benefit to be had if you choose to cast (that, or you could just be a masochist that likes to fail...).
@Houstonderek: I don't remember having any problems with you, but you just took a (perceived) shot at me after I had a bad day with the extended family (easter and all that). Hope you understand.
|
|
It you were just making casting harder, I would be against it unless you made swinging a sword (or anything else, for that matter) more difficult (or more dangerous). The current system works, and if you want to make spellcasting more difficult without making everything else more difficult, then I think you need to do a balancing act. If casting is harder, there must be some intrinsic benefit to be had if you choose to cast (that, or you could just be a masochist that likes to fail...).
@Houstonderek: I don't remember having any problems with you, but you just took a (perceived) shot at me after I had a bad day with the extended family (easter and all that). Hope you understand.
It's all good. I just wonder how many people understand how easy casters have it compared to older edition casters. Part of the reason wizards were perceived by some of us as way too powerful at mid to high levels in 3x was that they did make swinging a sword so much less effective and casting so much easier than it was during the heyday of the game.
For the record, though, I was just having a grognard moment, no offense intended.
;)
|
|
Various settings have toyed with 'dangerous magic,' ranging from Dark Sun's defiling to Ravenloft's 'powers checks,' but D&D really hasn't gone too far in that direction.No, D&D started there (casting in combat was suicide, aging effects for casting certain spells, etc)
[tangent] I found casting in melee much safer in 2nd edition before attacks of opportunity. Just wait until the melee class had gone, and then cast whatever you wanted, enjoying his utter inability to do anything to stop you.
But that side-conversation really has nothing to do with the OPs questions about 'too casual' use of magic to 'cook and clean' and whatnot, taking magic for granted as just another tool to mend clothing and create water and purify foodstuffs and whatnot. [/endtangent]
Any thoughts on how to make out of combat uses of magic more 'magical' (mysterious, possibly dangerous) and less like power-tools (or, worse, even *safer* than power-tools)?
I've offered up a half-dozen or so notions (nonlethal damage, confusion, ability damage, out of control / mis-targetted spell, fatigue, temporary possession, etc.), so I've probably finished my constructive contributions to this thread and should shut up now before I get dragged into non-constructive stuff that will just derail any value it might have had.
|
|
Various settings have toyed with 'dangerous magic,' ranging from Dark Sun's defiling to Ravenloft's 'powers checks,' but D&D really hasn't gone too far in that direction.No, D&D started there (casting in combat was suicide, aging effects for casting certain spells, etc)[tangent] I found casting in melee much safer in 2nd edition before attacks of opportunity. Just wait until the melee class had gone, and then cast whatever you wanted, enjoying his utter inability to do anything to stop you.
But that side-conversation really has nothing to do with the OPs questions about 'too casual' use of magic to 'cook and clean' and whatnot, taking magic for granted as just another tool to mend clothing and create water and purify foodstuffs and whatnot. [/endtangent]
Any thoughts on how to make out of combat uses of magic more 'magical' (mysterious, possibly dangerous) and less like power-tools (or, worse, even *safer* than power-tools)?
Hence the "Cook took the danger out" comment. In 1e, with the casting times and "just about anything could disrupt casting" rules, wands and low level spells were the norm unless the party's mundane characters could keep the enemy off you. And there was no moving in 1e, you were rooted in that spot if there was any kind of somatic component.
As to the OP's suggestion, unless all magic was pact magic (and that unseen servant could get loose and try to kill you) I don't see how the D&D system would support it. And even if magic could make you fatigued or nauseous or whatnot, I don't see the point if there isn't a threat to the character. I don't see too many groups playing "housecleaning hour"...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
houstonderek and freesword,
Sorry if I missed this already being mentioned, but as I recall, the main thing more "dangerous" about AD&D casting was that if you were struck during your casting time, your spell fizzled. Which has been replaced by the AOO/Concentration check mechanic, which gives you a chance of success. It is easier, but there's still a challenge there (at least under Pathfinder rules). And in AD&D and in 3.x and Pathfinder, a spellcaster just quickly learned to stay the heck out of the way when casting. Not a really "MUCH MORE DANGEROUS" kind of thing, IMHO of course.(Plus also, as a spellcaster it was actually easier to screw over enemy spellcasters by hitting them with magic missile everytime they tried to cast something complicated.)
There were also some individual dangerous spell effects--Haste aged you, you could accidentally kill yourself when Teleporting. 3.x and Pathfinder took these consequences away but AT THE TRADEOFF of making the spells less powerful to begin with. It was still about balancing spellcasting, just the different editions did it a different way. And there were plenty of spells you could cast at no harm to yourself, far more than the spells that came with a risk.
I was not, nor do I think Hunterofthedusk was (of course he can speak for himself), talking about the spellcasting hazards in AD&D, per se. Which were still relatively reasonable restrictions (though I personally am still glad to be rid of them, but that's neither here nor there).
Rather I was talking more about the kind of drastic hazards seen in fiction--everytime you cast, there was a strong chance (more than rolling 00 on a d100) of a vast misfire, or demons appearing and devouring your soul, or getting a horrible splitting break your head headache, or what-have-you. I would not like to see these things in an RPG system.
And I think calling Hunterofthedusk "the fun police"--especially when I think you entirely missed his, my, and a number of other people's points--entirely inappropriate and uncalled for. It seriously brings the tone of discussion down, and for no good reason.
Please forgive me if there are any further misunderstandings.
I'm w/the old school of thought that the older magic was more balanced compared to the serious beefing casting got overall in the 3.x upgrade. I mean, used to be that multiple attacks was for warriors, and ONLY warriors - in the upgrade, it became a simple function of BAB for EVERYONE (even with the WORST progression - this is a significant advantage literally given away to caster-types - they did NOT need it, neither clerics or arcane types - both had spells [and still have] to give them those precise bonuses of melee-primary types). They also get to roll to maintain their spells even when getting lumped. They lost "casting time" in favor of immediate casting according to "standard, swift, or full round" casting times. They just had to wait for their init now where before they had to wait for init, declare their spell, wait for the adjusted casting time, and in the meantime, pray to god no one managed to get through to mess up the spell when it was "in the works" so to speak. No ... casters were made, much, much, MUCH more powerful, and I'm going from my heyday notes on this as well. Casters are FAR more powerful now than they've ever been. Period!
PF may have taken a few steps towards reducing that ... but they've mostly left it fully intact (the power upgrades), and so this leaves them as the most potent classes in the game.
Anything that helps to limit them in a more immersive fashion would be a good thing, IMO.
Best Ideas I've heard so far:
1) Non-lethal damage of some sort corresponding to spell level being cast. My vote would be 1 NL dmg starting at 0 level spells, and increasing to 2 for 1st, 3, for 2nd, etc and so on up to 10 for 9th. It'll mean taking mages "alive" becomes more likely [as they tire themselves out during the casting and all that] and helps to give a feel of risk w/out being too heavy-handed. The minus = added calculation of lethal/nonlethal measures for accurately gauging when the target will drop from ... getting the stuffing spelled out of 'em basically. For even more restriction, you could (w/a bit more ease in PF given the HD bump casters have gotten - another "power up" in conversion to PF) bump it to spell level x2 with a minimum of 1 (for 0-level spells) although this means some serious subdual/nonlethal damage pouring out at higher levels.
Very big Plus to either numerical way of handling this: subdual/nonlethal damage heals REAL fast. Matter of fact, if you did this outright in replacement of "spell slots" (keep spell "accessibility" as a function of level, but lose the limit of casting potential) it may even make casting more simple (ie: ditch the spell-slot half of the balancing act and make it all about how much HP/non-lethal "juice" you've got left to be able to cast). This, however, might make everyone spontaneous casters by default, though ... not sure.
2) Rolling saves for spell effects on the caster's end of things. I like the idea since it makes use of existing mechanics. A simple Fort save vs. moving up to a level of exertion in combat (ie: fatigued or exhausted or finally unconscious outright, but that's 3 failures) after each spell is cast would nicely hit the proper effects, I think, provided those exhausted and such penalties also apply to the spell-casting the character does. It's just a neat, clean, and simple "add on" to what's already there. Nothing is reinvented, spell-casting takes on more risk, and all conditions, etc are already clearly defined. DC's would/should probably start at 10+spell level for the fort save, though (10's for 0's, and so on up to DC 19 for 20th level casters casting 9th level spells to avoid the tiring effects of casting). I like that it adds some random-chance to the spell casting in a way that is not present at all (ie: too "perfect" magic currently) in the RAW. You could blow your first save and immediately be in trouble as the magic "taxed you too great" in the first round - it'll add another dynamic to casting and combat in general w/out making high-level play all about being a "caster's b!&+~" outright somehow. Targeting their weakest save, also means that for the higher level spells, they're taking only a +6 to manage 'em (w/out factoring other stuff in - hello, Christmas Tree!). More often than not, high level casters out to be able to manage the 19 save I'd think (math-junkies care to run #'s?), w/all their gear factored in - maybe even see a few more taking "Great Fortitude" or something as well (ie: really a good reason for 'em to invest in the lower levels, etc).
3) What about some hybrid of the two? Taking on non-lethal damage as it progresses, and possibly getting even more taxed for use of the abilities outright (ie: the Fort save after)? If layering like this, though, I'd be MUCH more inclined to go with the lower cost (since they're now getting hit in about 3 places: spell slots, non-lethal damage, and a save vs. "tired"). It's still not adding too much complication, is mostly simple and direct, but adds some more "risk" to the existing magic that, really, has none.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do believe that the whole 'well it was hard in older additions' argument is a misconception. While yes, there were other limitations on spellcasting then, there was also a significantly different power curve. Individual spells were complete win buttons. Certainly the wizard didnt cast all day. He would walk around and do very little until that moment when he basically said, no, im the wizard you go away.
A design goal of pathfinder was specifically to avoid that. Specific spells have been further powered down, and longevity of casters has been increased.
That said, I think that the saving throw system puts on the illusion that magic is automatic. That isnt the case, there is still a roll it's just on the other side of the dice. The chance for failure is similar with the vast majority of spells. If someone wants to change the perceptions, I think instituting a skill system is a good idea. Remove saving throws, and instead have a skill system that has to hit dc's based on the spell level. If you miss it by too much spell goes wonky, if you beat it by a similar amount, it gets powered up.
I dont think it is fair to add in a second layer of failure chance, which regardless of what people say about older editions wasn't there.
|
|
One of the possible ideas for limiting magic (that doesn't involve actually cutting down on a player's options) is to maybe include a corrupting influence of some sort. Maybe Arcane magic was taught to man by Devils, and the more you employ it, the closer your soul gets to spending an eternity in a place it would rather not. This would definitely discourage the majority of people from practicing it, and would definitely prevent people from actively broadcasting that they cast arcane spells to the general populous, making it rare even if 1 out of every 4 people is an arcane caster.
To elaborate- Arcane magic is seen as a shortcut to getting the things you want. You cast a spell, and your enemies kneel before you. Your clothes will remain forever fresh, your meals will always be savory... But at what price? If people are literally damning their mortal souls with every spell they cast, there will cease to be Mage Guilds in every city, magic items will be feared as much as they are treasured, and maybe every wizard you come across could go mad at any point and succumb to his dark masters.
Now, this doesn't really do anything to the balance like the OP wanted (unless they employ taint rules akin to Heroes of Horror), but as I have said before I think that the system is already balanced. It does, however, solve his second problem- Magic would be rare(er).
No clue why I didn't think of this before.. but.
There was a 3.5 OGL setting called 'Midnight' that was Low magic and enforced it by basically severely handicapping magic. You might want to look at it.
It buffed melee to make up for it (and all the races, too) but it had a relatively balanced, effective method for keeping magic special along with rules on how to adjust monsters so they wouldn't be TPK machines in the making.
Also just a decent setting in its own right.
-S
|
|
No clue why I didn't think of this before.. but.
There was a 3.5 OGL setting called 'Midnight' that was Low magic and enforced it by basically severely handicapping magic. You might want to look at it.
It buffed melee to make up for it (and all the races, too) but it had a relatively balanced, effective method for keeping magic special along with rules on how to adjust monsters so they wouldn't be TPK machines in the making.
Also just a decent setting in its own right.
-S
Midnight is kind of brutal for modern expectations of play. Great setting, but probably a bit grim for a lot of players.
|
|
A different application might be to make the spellcasting require a roll (Spellcraft?) and if the roll fails, the lesser risk is taken (nonlethal damage) and if the roll botches, the nasty effect takes place (spell out of control, ability damage, temporary possession, etc.). DC is based on spell level, and at a certain point a 1 becomes merely an auto-fail and not a botch, so that cantrips don't wipe out archmages (perhaps two or three spell tiers after you gain a tier of spells, so that a 3rd or 5th level wizard can cast cantrips safely, and nobody ever becomes able to cast (7th) 8th or 9th level spells with 100% impunity).
Since I'm a fan of adding with the other hand, if I'm taking away with this one, perhaps the spellcaster gains the ability to attempt to cast spells over and above his spell slots / spells prepared for the day, at steep penalties to the spellcraft check (and with no protection from disastrous fumbles, no matter how low level the spell is). Allowing a spellcaster to gamble on a few extra spells per day increases the chance that the new mechanic will see some use, as some will take the chance.
A variant metamagic system could allow the spellcaster to metamagic a spell on the fly, at an increase to the Spellcraft DC, and, thus, an increase in chance of something going horribly wrong. (Perhaps the flavor text for this setting is that spells represent 'tools of creation' left behind by the gods, or some powers older even than the gods, and that arcanists have learned the words of power necessarily to echo these ancient arts of creation. Modifying these ancient tools is akin to messing with dynamite, so that as the 'tools' themselves aren't entirely safe to use, enhancing or changing them on the fly becomes even more ill-advised, at least, for mere mortals...)
|
|
My intent is that all arcane magic would be seen as evil. It's more about how to handle magic being rare in the setting rather than limiting a player's options. I actually thought about this because of the "Evil Curious" suggestion in the PHB2 about how to RP your wizard. Keeping it an RP-only restriction does concern me, but getting into "evil" point systems would make players want to cancel them out with good actions, but that leads into alignment discussion territory...
So, maybe Insanity points might be better (like, I believe someone mentions, Call of Cthulhu?)? PC's can't "good deed" those away. They might have to seek psychiatric help every so often (Wizard: "I have seen... THE VOID!!!!" Psychiatrist:"And how did that make you feel?"), but that's another matter entirely.
Actually, I quite like the idea of making Sanity checks to avoid having your mind blown every time you cast a spell. Could be a good reason for a Heroic BSOD
I'm actually a big fan of Sanity as a cost of casting (potential cost anyway), so yeah! Sanity checks and such work great for making magic "magical" again vs. the "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" vibe it has now. {Yeech!!}
Spiking off of Set's thought, the BEST D20 magic system I've seen is in the Wheel of Time D20 game. It's just brilliant all around!
In particular, it allows "overchanneling" (exactly what Set describes - casting even w/no slots) and it gets harder and harder the more slots you are away from the one required for what you want. So it's skill-based (over-channeling anyway, normal = fire and forget like fully normal) and you make a check vs. increasing DC's depending on how *much* you want to overchannel. Say you've got only a second level slot open, you can overchannel and make that slot act as a 3rd level spell, but at a difficult DC to manage. You could also use the same slot and overchannel it up to level 5 if you wanted, but the DC would be epic, and your failure on the check would be catastrophic! (ie: potentially to lose all casting ability outright!)
I love that system of D20 magic overall, though - just very clean and simple. Instead of a million, different *slight* variant spells, there were only a handful, BUT most of the variance came with HOW you decided you wanted to cast the thing. So ... say "fireball" you could cast as a 3rd level spell, or a 4th, or a 5th, etc, and so on up to 9th (provided you either had the spell slots or over-channel chops to pull it off). All of the spells had certain variables that rose and adjusted with the 'spell level' it was cast at. Much cleaner, IMO, than the clunky "Bigby's spell of X" and the like that's all in there currently.
It also had a sanity risk for male casters, but it would be easy enough to apply the rules to everyone period (not just males alone).
Lots of things are possible but I think you really have to try and approach it with imagination - a whole new system rather than the old system with dampers on.
Its a very hard retrofit.
I'm curious if you decide on something.
Green Ronin (at least I think it was them) did a system called True Sorcery that used Spellcraft checks to cast spells and nonlethal damage in place of spell slots. Very interesting system, and certainly one of my favorite both mechanically and in terms of fluff.
The issue of course that came up was that they allowed you to tailor each spellcasting, so there could be a lot of math done on the fly, which could slow down the game if you didn't have proficient characters running the spellcasters.
|
One of the best magic systems for d20 I've seen was done by the now defunct Guardians of the North for BESM d20. Originally done for The Slayers d20 Role Playing, it was later adapted for BESM to address the fact that spells had not been handled in any detail in any of their supplements.
Dynamic spellcasting, as it was called, required a Fortitude save against the spell's Drain (with the result of the save determining the amount of Drain suffered). If the save was failed by 10 or more, a Control check was required to see if the caster could retain control over the energy flowing through his or her body.
The system can be found in the book Advanced d20 Magic, where the spells from Core Rulebook I were fleshed out in this very manner. It is a fascinating read for those interested. I highly recommend it.
My main concern about this approach, which I'm certain you don't intend, is the possible conclusion that all arcane spells are inherently evil, therefore casting arcane spells is an evil act, and all arcane spell casters must be evil. This in itself can cut down a player's options, especially in groups which hold to "no evil PCs". Again, I'm sure this is not your intent, but it is a possible consequence of such an approach.Unfortunately, role play consequences too often tend to get hand waved or used to punish a character. This makes them harder to implement effectively than mechanics based consequences.
It's more or less the same system employed in Dragon Age, and the idea is that magic is inherently evil, or inherently opens you to evil and therefore must be strictly controlled. Demon possession, however, would be a tad hard to work into the game.
The problem is, once you put a damper on magical awesomeness, what happens at high levels in D&D where the monsters are somewhere on the level of "laugh in your face - then eat it" against every character but the magic slinger?
|
First, I felt this could go in the rules section, but I am looking for philosophical discussion as well as potential rules adjustments. That said...
Should magic have consequences/limitations(beyond the numerical)?
I was proofing a friend's book and realized his characters, potent magicians, still cook and clean by hand. Why wouldn't they use magic to quickly prepare their meals, and clean up afterward? Because magic in his world is chaotic and unpredictable, rather than the perfect computer accuracy with which spells are cast in D&D. One can cast a simple spell, lose control, and annihilate an entire college campus.
That got me thinking: There don't seem to be ANY consequences for casting magic in the D&D/Pathfinder construct(excepting certain spells). You point and shoot, with little or no cost. Material components generally get handwaved or Eschewed, and the hour per day of prep is integrated into normal rest time. Level 13+ sucks mostly because magic(though magic items as well) is unrestricted. If Save-or-Die extended to both the caster and the target, would you think twice about Disintegrating an enemy? If a fireball could backfire, would that limit it's use?
Moving forward, how could this be handled from a rules perspective? I'm interested in providing a consequence to spellcasting, partially for balance purposes, but mainly to create a world in which magic is valuable and rare.
This is a very interesting concept and I agree that consequences for spell casting by various new rules suggested by other posters is thought provoking.
I suggest an entirely different take which may or may not be a way forward. We have a set of spells in our core books that have been used and balanced for gameplay in the 3rd Ed./PF systems. Some of these spells I would argue are poorly thought through like the Wind Wall spell which was debated in another thread, but most seem workable and fair.
The last thing I would like to see is a complete alteration in the rules for spell casting. Say a mage, who has spent a long period of spell-casting (effectively saving the rest of the party), due to a lot of dangerous back to back encounters has all his useful spells exhausted. What can he do then, very little apart from help out identifying curious magical items or offering knowledge other party members don't possess? The said mage is no real use in melee, and any further hostile encounters are not going to *know* he has no spells left to harm them and will often (if they're bright enough) try to take him out first. Being a wizard is a very difficult class to play and the current restriction he/she faces as in AoO during spell casting are already a hindrance, as are attacks by others at a distance that could foil his spell casting (remembering that if they do he loses his spell).
The last thing he'll want is to have to make saves in case of nasty spell backfire that could damage him lethally/non lethally. It would put me off playing a mage in a heartbeat.
Having said that, for those who think there should be rules of this kind might take another look at the overall magic system itself
Firstly, in fantasy RPGs, magic is the bread and butter of the world. Let's say that magic is a power that percolates the worlds of fantasy and is useable with the right training. All mages spend a long time in training to get to first level, prior to adventuring, which is why they have less starting cash and tend to be older than other 1st level party members.
Secondly we assume that all spells that we know are available (in core rulebooks and other sources) have been tried and tested over centuries and their dangerous side effects have been ironed out, so that even if the mage fails to cast such a spell, they do not harm anyone (though maybe the mage could be ,say exhausted a little for a number of rounds
depending on the level of spell cast and minus/plus his CON penalty/bonus. But I wouldn't necessarily use that rule myself but may appeal to other posters who feel magic is to potent.
Thirdly, we could introduce the danger rules when a mage tries to fashion a new spell. We could rule that all new spells are not tried and tested and even if they appear to work when formulated there may be still small chances of side effects when cast. If these side effects are dire, so be it, but it would all come down to spell level spellcraft checks and other pertinent skills the mage knows. If the spell causes unwanted side effects then he may go back and do further work on the formula to refine it. But time spent refining this new spell should result in side effects that are less and less dangerous every time the creator works to refine the spell (All this would be carried out between adventures and cost money). But over time the spell would eventually be refined to such a state that it is no longer any more dangerous than published spells. There might even be a rule for catastrophic failure say a % role on first creation of the spell for 1%-10% depending on spell level (1%=0 level spell 10%=9th level spell) where there is a very real chance of hurting or even destroying the spell designer. Such are the risks of spell making.
This would work in 3.5/PF because the system details all spells useable up front. But you will have players who wish to do so and so and make a new spell. The Player and GM can agree to effects and level of spell prior to creation and at that point the PC begins his spell creation experiments.
So this may or may not be a way to go. The GM may also limit found spells to such an extent that the PC will need to create his own. I don't like this much myself because I don't think the mage is out of balance in the game, but it might satisfy those GMs above who think spell casting ought to come with more risks.
Just my two cents.
EDIT: For typo
Wrote .... interesting stuff.
Well, the big problem is that those of us on the "let's try something different" side are trying to limit magic more from the story/utility side. Making magic more "magical" vs. Magic-Marts-R-Us (seeming default by standard rules now).
So, if your premise is that casters have studied more, and so have already 'tamed' magic, it's not going to work for us - at all. It's the diametric opposite of what we're gunning for - follow? Magic "can't be safe" - EVER is more where we're aiming. It's always dangerous, and always has high risks, which is where the quadratic caster power level can make sense for those that see it as a balance issue vs. the non-casting types (ie: most everyone). When you throw in increased risk to balance out the quadratic power curve, it's not *so* bad compared to the standard balance now (ie: non-casters are way out of competition in the upper levels).
I'm not sure I'm speaking for everyone on the "moderate magic" side, but I'd bet most of us look at it in these terms to some degree. Magic, currently, is FAR more powerful than everything else, with little to restrict it, and nothing to flesh it out game-mechanically with anything really interesting (ie: rareness/uniqueness/PC exceptionality in pursuing it and mastering it, etc). It's too "clean" and "perfect" right now, and we're looking for a way to add some mystery, mystique and flavor into it mechanically.
That's how I'm looking at it, anyway.
|
|
Sometimes you don't need "rules" the create consequences for "abusing" magic. I look to the anime Slayers for my inspiration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSC4nCa6Qw4
Fast forward to about the 19 minute mark and watch the last 3 minutes, you'll get the point. :)
Keep in mind that, as I alluded to in my first post on this topic, making magic require an activation roll (with a chance to fumble) doesn't make magic weaker if it is compensated for in some other way. I suggested that wizards not be limited in their spells per day. A first level wizard can cast a first level spell as often as he wants throughout the day - though there's always a chance for spell failure and/or spell fumble.
In fact, making this change has the added benefit that it helps to get the PCs off of the "three encounter day" cycle.
While making this change, I'd make sure that the Sorcerer and Wizard don't start looking more similar. The Sorcerer should keep his focus on enchantment/illusion/conjuration, while the Wizard keeps his focus on invocation/alteration and common between them are abjuration/necromancy/divination.
Hmm ... certainly potential there.
Definitely will revolve around Sorcerer's and wizards being differentiated again ... maybe Sorcerer's can make their DC's easier? (still highly restricted casting list?)
|
|
Charke Publishing's Exhaustion Magic is a pretty cool replacement magic system that doesn't make you rewrite everything - and it's free!
And everyone stops playing Wizards.