Has anyone play tested any of the non-vancian magic systems with pathfinder? I am thinking specifically of Elements of Magic, True Sorcery, or Monte Cook's World of Darkness, but if there are any other good ones I have missed feel free to point them out. I am just wondering inf the magic systems are already balanced for pathfinder or if they need tweaks. Thanks!
Elements of magic is good, but requires a good bit of prep work. You have to change the durations the same way paizo did, otherwise it works great IMO. A while back I thought about making a magic or psionic system based on interchangeable parts, but I hadn't seen a lot of interest in non-Vancian stuff. I guess it's nostalgia.
I've never been a fan of the vancian system as it stands now. I like the idea of having "rote" spells as a jumping off point, and then being able to modify or make spells that suit the situation. That seems like the quintessential fantasy mage, to me. You never read "Well crap! I didn't see that coming. Sorry guys totally forgot to prepare 'protection from azz cancer' today . . . give me eight hours, though, and I've got you covered!" in a fantasy novel. The flexibility of these systems sound awesome. The difficulty is getting my group to play test them.
I've never been a fan of the vancian system as it stands now. I like the idea of having "rote" spells as a jumping off point, and then being able to modify or make spells that suit the situation. That seems like the quintessential fantasy mage, to me. You never read "Well crap! I didn't see that coming. Sorry guys totally forgot to prepare 'protection from azz cancer' today . . . give me eight hours, though, and I've got you covered!" in a fantasy novel. The flexibility of these systems sound awesome. The difficulty is getting my group to play test them.
Only thing I played with was psionics 3.5 books which worked pretty decently, but had some flaws in spellpower and such which got adjusted in a fairly decent manner in complete psionics.
- on a sidenote could you please refrain from using words like azz cancer needlessly, I know you didnt mean anything by it, but it racks up a whole lot of unpleasantness for me and possibly quite a few other people from personal experience. thank you.
out of curiosity, are you keeping the vancian for prepared casters and changing it for spontaneous casters? or does everybody get the revamp?
In my campaign setting I'm using several modified version's of Ross's Zelazny Spellcasting for arcanists, while divine spellcasters use Vancian casting. It thus far seems to retain balance while distinguishing them from each other mechanically and flavor wise.
out of curiosity, are you keeping the vancian for prepared casters and changing it for spontaneous casters? or does everybody get the revamp?
The two systems I have taken a look at (McWoD and Elements of Magic) do not have the spontaneous/prepared distinction. They give magic point bonuses to personalized spells and the casters can have a number of those memorized equal to X+ int. So the classes are a combination of spontaneous and memorized. Power wise the systems strive to be equal to or slightly lower (without modification) then the vancian system so that you can still have regular wizards/sorcerers if you wish.
I've never been a fan of the vancian system as it stands now. I like the idea of having "rote" spells as a jumping off point, and then being able to modify or make spells that suit the situation. That seems like the quintessential fantasy mage, to me. You never read "Well crap! I didn't see that coming. Sorry guys totally forgot to prepare 'protection from azz cancer' today . . . give me eight hours, though, and I've got you covered!" in a fantasy novel.
Well... it might explain why wizards in fantasy novels can use certain spells at some times, but can't use the same spells at others.
And the fact that you refer to it as "the vancian system" proves that you know of ONE author who writes about "fire and forget" magic, anyway.
But I agree that it's a pain to have to choose your available spells every day... which is why I prefer to play SORCERERS.
Only thing I played with was psionics 3.5 books which worked pretty decently, but had some flaws in spellpower and such which got adjusted in a fairly decent manner in complete psionics.
What.
I just.
What.
Did you say something...positive about Complete Psionics?
I.
What are you?
|
Check out the magic system for Arcana Evolved by monte cook.
All casters are spontanius. You can change which spells you know every day. You can decide to cast spells at a higher or lower level for lessened / increased effects. Metamagic feats are actually worthwile. No distinction between arcane and divine magic.
Only thing I played with was psionics 3.5 books which worked pretty decently, but had some flaws in spellpower and such which got adjusted in a fairly decent manner in complete psionics.What.
I just.
What.
Did you say something...positive about Complete Psionics?
I.
What are you?
Complete Psionics had some bad ideas in there, but it did provide some errata for a few things and some good ideas. Some glaring bad ones, yes, abut a few good ones.
I've never been a fan of the vancian system as it stands now. I like the idea of having "rote" spells as a jumping off point, and then being able to modify or make spells that suit the situation. That seems like the quintessential fantasy mage, to me. You never read "Well crap! I didn't see that coming. Sorry guys totally forgot to prepare 'protection from azz cancer' today . . . give me eight hours, though, and I've got you covered!" in a fantasy novel.Well... it might explain why wizards in fantasy novels can use certain spells at some times, but can't use the same spells at others.
And the fact that you refer to it as "the vancian system" proves that you know of ONE author who writes about "fire and forget" magic, anyway.
But I agree that it's a pain to have to choose your available spells every day... which is why I prefer to play SORCERERS.
It isn't just having to choose my spells. It is not having a spell that does what I want/need it to do. Or having to burn a really powerful spell on something trivial, either because it is all you have left or the closest tool in your tool box. I like the idea of being able to shape the magic as you need it.
Sorcerers are fun, and it's been pretty easy to plug in 3.5e psionics straight.
I always felt like the 3.5e variant magic, especially incantations, should have gotten more love and development.
|
I'm working (lazily) on a system based on the one presented in Thieves' World Player's Manual, with lowered DCs.
Basically, a spellcaster gets a level based bonus akin to BAB with which he/she focuses magic energy (mana) during spellcasting. If not enough mana is gathered in one check, previous results are cumulative.
The system has various (very simple) subrules for known/familiar/unknown spells, magicks that have been just observed, areas of low/high magical power, spontaneous spellcasters, casting from scrolls/spellbooks, etc.
Also it inherently has differences between spells (rapid casting) and rituals (longer casting time), and it's a cakewalk to characterize classes by building on a simple bunch of differences.
Also, it is a somewhat good starting point for a unified magic/psionic system.
Oh, and it's under the OGL to boot!
Sorcerers are fun, and it's been pretty easy to plug in 3.5e psionics straight.
I always felt like the 3.5e variant magic, especially incantations, should have gotten more love and development.
+1
I use a modified version, adding a few new features. It allows players a lot more flexibility to be heroic. You might not want to try this if you are a weak GM who cannot deal with vigorous, thoughtful, etc. players.
"Has anyone play tested any of the non-vancian magic systems with pathfinder?"
I was gonna make a joke about how great psionics works for this, but like three people beat me to it.
So instead: I once made a house-ruled casting system that worked eerily similar to the XPH psionics one. Basically we abstracted the spell levels normally gained, ie: a first level spell cost 1 point, a second cost 2 points. Then we just found out how many spells of each level a caster could pop out per day (including bonus spells for a high stat) and turned it into a pool of points that he could use to cast all his spells. This made all casters spontaneous (this was back in AD&D when that was novel) and multiplied their versatility by infinity. The end result was very satisfying for both PCs and DM. "Wooo, I can cast 2 9th level spells, that's 18 points in my pool!"
Written for Hero, but this might help/inspire.
I'm working on my own magic system for my own game I'm working on, with all new spells and stuff. The basic premise, though, is that players get a basic power that may or may not cost points, and instead of making higher level spells, I'm making augments for the spells that shape them into more powerful versions (which, also, may or may not cost points). The idea is that a caster who can cast lesser orb of fire can also cast orb of fire, fireball, and any other hit-something-with-fire spell conjurable. Metamagic would turn into more augments for each of your spells.
I have to be honest, though: I'm not making it for PF just yet. If it comes to that, where there is enough interest in it, I might just do that.
Has anyone play tested any of the non-vancian magic systems with pathfinder? I am thinking specifically of Elements of Magic, True Sorcery, or Monte Cook's World of Darkness, but if there are any other good ones I have missed feel free to point them out. I am just wondering inf the magic systems are already balanced for pathfinder or if they need tweaks. Thanks!
Magic should provide a certain amount of "utility" which the Vancian system really doesn't allow for. I also agree that the Vancian system does not allow me to play a wizard as heroically or fantasy-literature-themed as I would like to. I also believe that spell casting classes should:
1. Have full access to all their spells.
2. Casting magic should be inherently physically draining.
Prior to Pathfinder, I didn't allow spontaneous casting classes in the campaigns I DM'd. In lieu of re-writing the spells or trying to ad-hoc a balanced magic point system, I still followed the normal "memorization rules", however I allowed characters to "replace a spell on the fly" with a class ability I called "Replace Spells". Here would be the rules re-written for Pathfinder:
Replace Spells (Ex)
As a full-round action, a spell caster may choose to replace and cast an existing memorized spell with one that they have knowledge of, provided its casting time is less than a full-round action. This rapid recollection of a known spell is physically exhausting on the caster and they must succeed on a Concentration check (DC of 10 + level of spell being recalled). On a failed check the caster becomes sickened for 10 minutes per level of the spell they were trying to recollect. When sickened from this effect, any further failed spell recollection check will make the caster sickened and nauseated for 1 hour per level of the spell they were trying to recall.
Every additional spell that the caster tries to recollect, increases the DC of the check by a cumulative +1, until the caster has rested for 8 hours.
The caster may replace any spell of equal or lower level with this ability. Meta-magic can not be applied to recalled spells, even if the spell it is replacing had meta-magic applied.
If a spell's casting time is less that a full-round action, the caster may try to recall and cast it at its normal casting time, however the caster will automatically become nauseated for 1 hour per level of the spell they were trying to recall.
That really was not called for.Sorcerers are fun, and it's been pretty easy to plug in 3.5e psionics straight.
I always felt like the 3.5e variant magic, especially incantations, should have gotten more love and development.
+1
I use a modified version, adding a few new features. It allows players a lot more flexibility to be heroic. You might not want to try this if you are a weak GM who cannot deal with vigorous, thoughtful, etc. players.
Yes it was.
We've tried a homebrew spell point system and a rune based system that involved a little leather bag of.. ..runes.. that was partly stolen from someplace/someone/something..
...but personally I keep coming back to the 'vancian' system.. thing..
..I just love the challenge of having to anticipate what's ahead, the choices between versatile spells and specific ones and having to manage resources.
It also emphasises the importance of gathering intelligence and planning.
The spell point system, I believe one was a rip from a 2ed suppliment, resulted in the casters not having to worry so much.
Where's the fun in that?! o-O
Also, some prefer to have flexible systems rather than inflexible ones, feeling it more thematically reflects what they conceive of as magic in fantasy settings from literature.
Also, some prefer to have flexible systems rather than inflexible ones, feeling it more thematically reflects what they conceive of as magic in fantasy settings from literature.
I find it interesting that the fantasy game, D&D, is continually compared with fantasy literature. On the one hand, the literature is often not even allowed to reference D&D names, places, systems, etc, and so the authors must devise a different way of telling the story. Beyond that, however, is just plain creativity, where the authors don't feel bound to an existing system, letting their minds take them to new and fascinating possibilities.
That said, prior to 1st edition D&D, there were few well known fantasy authors, and I would venture to guess that the most popular was Tolkien, who is credited for giving Gygax much of his material for the game. Since the popularity of the game, however, and its contistency, being a fan of fanstasy has become less of a "geek thing" and more mainstream. And so...there have been a plethora of writers in the fantasy genre, and more keep cropping up.
And each is compelled to create a different twist on the classic idea of spellcasting, magic items, etc. It can't look like D&D (for fear of being sued by WotC, or even be labeled unoriginal), and it certainly can't look like someone else's ideas (for fear of plagarism suits).
All this means is that Jack Vance wrote an original book, Gygax used his ideas for the game's magic system, and there have been countless hundreds of authors since that have written differently about magic. The game is pretty much settled on "vancian" magic, but with the myriad other ideas about magic out there, players will find themselves inevitably comparing the game's system to the look-and-feel of the latest novel they've read.
My take? Enjoy the novels AND enjoy the game. It's a LOT of work to redesign the game to have the same look-and-feel as a particular novel series. But...if you're up for the challenge, go for it. But if not, then simply realize that the game is designed differently. It's not better or worse; it's only different.
Fantasy literature has a very rich history and tradition that far pre-dates D&D and includes a LOT more than Tolkien - Pratt, de Camp, Howard, LeGuin, Moorcock, White, Vance and many more all set pen to paper long before Gygax came up with D&D. D&D was inspired by fantasy literature, not the other way around (for the most part, anyway). Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there are very few pre-D&D fantasy authors that are still popular today.
Magic systems within these works have varied enormously, but Jack Vance's system from the Dying Earth series stands out as one of the few that are easily quantifiable as a game system - for many it was never quantified but used as a plot device, which is probably why Gygax chose Vance's system as his model.
I find it interesting that the fantasy game, D&D, is continually compared with fantasy literature. On the one hand, the literature is often not even allowed to reference D&D names, places, systems, etc, and so the authors must devise a different way of telling the story. Beyond that, however, is just plain creativity, where the authors don't feel bound to an existing system, letting their minds take them to new and fascinating possibilities.
D&D isn't "allowed" to reference a lot of fanrasy literature either. It's called IP. Intellectual property. If it's mythological you can (elves, dwarves, orcs, trolls, etc.) if it's invented (i.e. the gods of Moorcock's Elric series) you can't. Without permission anyway, which involves obtaining the authors permission (often involving money / licensing arrangements).
That said, prior to 1st edition D&D, there were few well known fantasy authors, and I would venture to guess that the most popular was Tolkien, who is credited for giving Gygax much of his material for the game. Since the popularity of the game, however, and its contistency, being a fan of fanstasy has become less of a "geek thing" and more mainstream. And so...there have been a plethora of writers in the fantasy genre, and more keep cropping up.
There have been many popular fantasy authors, Tolkein not being the first although he is, and was, one of the most popular. Try Andre Norton, Lord Dunsany, Poul Anderson, H.P. Lovecraft, Michael Moorcock, Jack Vance and a host of others. Fantasy and science fiction are more "mainstream" now because people my age (and a bit older -- I'm 51) grew up reading it, and made movies and games about it. So it is more accepted now, you're right about that. What is relatively new is game related fantasy (although that goes back into the 1980s).
And each is compelled to create a different twist on the classic idea of spellcasting, magic items, etc. It can't look like D&D (for fear of being sued by WotC, or even be labeled unoriginal), and it certainly can't look like someone else's ideas (for fear of plagarism suits).
A lot does look like it. Some doesn't. Depends on the author. In any event originality is a little thin on the ground these days. There is a lot more stuff pumped out though, but it tends to fall into popular sub-genres (urban fantasy and vampires being the current faves). A lot of fantasy fiction magic doesn't have a well thought out magic system. It bends to the authors needs and whims. Game fantasy needs a system to function and is more consistent as a result (imo).
All this means is that Jack Vance wrote an original book, Gygax used his ideas for the game's magic system, and there have been countless hundreds of authors since that have written differently about magic. The game is pretty much settled on "vancian" magic, but with the myriad other ideas about magic out there, players will find themselves inevitably comparing the game's system to the look-and-feel of the latest novel they've read.
There were a lot of influences on the game (not just Tolkein and Vance) as well as a lot of mythological ideas incorporated into it. People have been tinkering with the magic system or replacing it since the day the game came out. I got my first copy in 1974 and started messing with the magic system about a year later. It's a popular pastime. That hasn't changed.
My take? Enjoy the novels AND enjoy the game. It's a LOT of work to redesign the game to have the same look-and-feel as a particular novel series. But...if you're up for the challenge, go for it. But if not, then simply realize that the game is designed differently. It's not better or worse; it's only different.
Definitely agree with this.
In Unearthed Arcana (3.5 Wizards--not to be confused with Cooke's Arcana Unearthed) there were some good variants. You can still find it for sale online.
My favorite was the Recharge variant. You had to wait a certain amount of time between spell castings, with a longer time for more powerful spells. So you could cast 1st level often but if your fireball screwed up you were without spells for a while. As GM I increased the wait time for bigger spells than what they recomend, and I also treated Cure spells differently since that could be unbalancing.
In Unearthed Arcana (3.5 Wizards--not to be confused with Cooke's Arcana Unearthed) there were some good variants. You can still find it for sale online.
My favorite was the Recharge variant. You had to wait a certain amount of time between spell castings, with a longer time for more powerful spells. So you could cast 1st level often but if your fireball screwed up you were without spells for a while. As GM I increased the wait time for bigger spells than what they recomend, and I also treated Cure spells differently since that could be unbalancing.
Unearthed Arcana (the later one, not the 1st Ed AD&D one obviously) is OGL (the only Wizards splatbook to be so) iirc. The d20srd should have this material if you don't want to hunt a copy down. I believe parts of it are linked above.
|
Sorcerers are fun, and it's been pretty easy to plug in 3.5e psionics straight.
I always felt like the 3.5e variant magic, especially incantations, should have gotten more love and development.
someone say incantations????? Look here! and here
I have messed with a little experiment, but never playtested it. Wizards work as is, using the book Vancian system, Clerics are changed and all are spontaneous casters, Sorcerers use their charisma to power spells using a spell point system, similar to psionics. It gives each class a very distinct feel of casting magic and explains why a wizard cannot cast a spell written by a Cleric... because the magic is fundamentally different. It also gives the Sorcerer a reason to exist in the first place. Bloodlines helped but still, it is just a Wizard... oh and entirely different spell lists... Sorcerer and Wizard do NOT use the same list.
|
|
Sorcerers are fun, and it's been pretty easy to plug in 3.5e psionics straight.
I always felt like the 3.5e variant magic, especially incantations, should have gotten more love and development.
someone say incantations????? Look here! and here
I have messed with a little experiment, but never playtested it. Wizards work as is, using the book Vancian system, Clerics are changed and all are spontaneous casters, Sorcerers use their charisma to power spells using a spell point system, similar to psionics. It gives each class a very distinct feel of casting magic and explains why a wizard cannot cast a spell written by a Cleric... because the magic is fundamentally different. It also gives the Sorcerer a reason to exist in the first place. Bloodlines helped but still, it is just a Wizard... oh and entirely different spell lists... Sorcerer and Wizard do NOT use the same list.
Your Sorcerers and Wizards use different spell lists? Would you mind explaining what you did? I'm very curious about this. Also, what about your other spellcasters (bard, druid, paladin, ranger)?
A lot of good stuff...
Thanks, R_Chance, for the thoughtful insights. Admittedly, I was speaking a bit over my head, but I felt the basic ideas needed to be said since the thread was steering toward a "D&D sucks cuz it ain't like my favorite author" kind of feeling.
I assumed a few things where I didn't have complete knowledge and didn't bother to research. Thanks for clearing it up.
A lot of good stuff...Thanks, R_Chance, for the thoughtful insights. Admittedly, I was speaking a bit over my head, but I felt the basic ideas needed to be said since the thread was steering toward a "D&D sucks cuz it ain't like my favorite author" kind of feeling.
I assumed a few things where I didn't have complete knowledge and didn't bother to research. Thanks for clearing it up.
I hope I didn't come off sounding like a jerk. A lot of people don't have the background... well they're not as ancient as me :) I agree, the magic system of D&D / PF can't be like most fantasy novels - because it has to have a functional, robust system of magic that "works" (in game). It has to be internally consistent. Fiction authors can make it up as they go, ignore inconsistencies and alter it as needed for their story. Not all do, but it certainly makes their job easier...