Spinoff from this thread.
It's just as stupid (or not stupid) as "I forgot how to cast that spell". Remember, wizards don't just use up spell slots when they cast a spell - otherwise they'd be able to cast them again the next day without their book. They actually forget how to cast it. Forgetting how to read someone else's magical writing seems like it'd be right along the same lines.
This is not the only possible interpretation of the ambiguous rules. Here's my interpretation (no more valid than yours, but easier to believe, I think):Using a literal reading of the Pathfinder rules (and ignoring the "memory" terminology from earlier editions), I treat spells as discrete, intangible objects constructed at preparation time and carried around on the caster's aura until discharged.
Therefore magic is not viewed as a "skill". Casters know exactly how many spell slots they have based on their own rituals and initiations. They think of spells in the same terms we do.
This description is far more coherent than the "memory" model, and reflects accurately not only the behavior of spell slots, but of expendable and permanent items. I submit it for the general improvement of your game-world.
I like that way of looking at it much better. And now that I go re-read the Magic section with that in mind, I can see how phrases like "Certain other events ... can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind" don't necessarily have the memory-based interpretation I was reading into it.
This comes up all the time, and I love discussing it: the magic rules aren't actually that weird or counter-intuitive. People are just ingrained in old explanations with didn't make much sense — mainly the whole "memory" explanation of spells.
I am a big fan of looking at the magic rules as currently printed, then interpreting what it must be like to live in that world — untainted by Gygaxian terminology. Once you make that leap, Pathfinder Magic is actually really cool and different.
So let's have a discussion! Taking the magic rules at face value:
I am especially interested in hearing descriptions that clarify the rules and make them seem "real" instead of abstract. I'm less interested in hearing about changes people have made to the magic system... I'd like to stick to common ground, description we can all use with the RAW.
I modify my fluff to mean that magic is a science whereupon the caster draws from the ambient energy of the world around him to create an effect, one tailored from a specific set of gestures and components to create an end effect: Chemistry, as it were.
My fluff regarding limitation is that the energy is channeled through the physical body, and the mortal frame can only handle so much of it at one time. Higher level/More spell slots represent the casters ability to channel energy more efficiently and less harmfully.
-Idle
Edit: This works only for Wizards, I have similar fluff for Clerics and other caster types, but this is the one that comes up the most.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My home campaign is based around the Warriors and Warlocks game, a d20 game mechanically simpler than D&D or Pathfinder. In my campaign, spellcasting characters don't prepare spells, but they take damage from casting them too often during a day. Most of the spellcasters have a small number of distinct spells they can cast, typically 2 or 3. One PC has 12, which is extraordinary.
Magic is chaos, the world inside out, and it is semi-alive. Each spell constantly whispers to its caster to be released, constantly strains at its bonds inside the caster's mind. That one PC has 12 voices in her head, all urging her to cast, to loose, to empower them.
She's a six-year-old girl, and quite mad.
|
I read a huge game book once called Aria. It was basically a meta game system which had rules which allowed the game master and players to create the game system (within certain parameters) and the game world in a collaborative method. Aria was almost worthless.
The section on magic was interesting though. You had to imagine what the source of magic in you game was. One example they gave is a magic astral tree and magic users would meditate to pluck the leaves and fruit (spells) and that was how they learned and used magic.
It was a funky way of thinking about it.
Wizards don't 'forget how to cast' a spell by casting it - that's from pre-1st edition.
Preparing a spell is casting almost all of it except for a few triggering elements. Think of it like in the morning the wizard has to perfectly recite the Ryme of the Ancient Mariner while doing an interpretive dance - except for the very last lines. When he does the last part, spell's cast. He doesn't 'forget the spell' - he has to do the whole first part over again. Spell casting being more mentally exhausting than poetry, he needs 8 hours rest before he can try that (unless he has a 'slot open' - meaning he's not already used himself up memorising other spells)
I am working on a modified caster system.
Sorcerers and Oracles get access to their bonus spells 2 levels earlier. Their known spells do not change, and their spells per day moves forward 1 level.
Example a level 5 fey sorcerer with a 18 charisma would have entangle, hideous laughter, and deep slumber as their bonuses spells. They would have 6 0-level, 4 1st level, and 2 2nd level known spells. They would have 7 1st, 6 2nd, and 4 3rd level spell per day.
In return, memorized caster all work more like spontaneous casters. Memorized classes memorize their normal spells per day, but they can cast any memorized spell using any slot. So a wizard who has fireball and haste memorized can cast haste twice, fireball twice, or one of each.
Finally, quicken spell feat is gone. Instead, casters can increase or decrease cast time to raise or lower the spell slot used. Every increase or decrease in cast time is worth 2 spell levels.
The progression is
swift action -> move action -> standard action -> 1 round action -> 2 round action -> 5 round action -> 10 round action
So a wizard can cast a fireball as a 1 round action and uses up a level 1 spell slot or they can cast an empower fireball as a 1 round action using a level 3 spell slot.
All in all, this gets around the wizard forgetting spells. They don't lose the spells, they just run out of juice to power their spells.
Wizard's spell as contained in spellbook is highly abstract and extremaly complex formula (so complex that learning it by heart requires taking Spell Mastery feat).
When preparing spells Wizards reference their spellbooks to weave and shape matrix of magical energy and store them within themselves.
When casting spell Wizard "triggers" the stored matrix and unleashes energy through it. Components are both triggering catalysts and missing part of the spell matrix itself.
Unleashing the matrix erases it from the Wizard's mind/aura.
Sorcerers instead have spell matrices imprinted in themselves permanently (more or less, as they can swap spells know). They use the same triggering techniques as wizards to channel energy through and unleash effects of matrices and may do that multiple times without erasing them but cannot change them easily.
Because they do not construct the matrice in their mind using the formulae from spellbook they need no Intelligence to cast spells but overall complexity of matrix they can have imprinted is limited by force of their personality.
EDIT: Divine magic works on similar principle except that Clerics, Druids and other spell preparing classes instead of creating matrices in their minds recive them from their deities (and require high insight to be able to open themselves to more complex matrices) and Oracles have matrices imprinted in them by divine forces.
Oh, yeah, and let us not forget to consider divine magic, alchemists, and other non-wizard cases. For some reason, wizards always seem to dominate the conversations on magic, when in fact they are a minority of casters!
In my own description, there isn't really a difference in the fundamental structure of a divine spell compared to an arcane one. They are both still "intangible objects" — I actually call them dweomers — and they require spell components for the same reason and behave similarly (as they do). The difference is in their source:
Divine spells are imparted by a deity and so can utilize creative forces only permitted to deities. Healing spells are the clearest manifestation of this principle.
Arcane spells are a product of mortals hijacking the created world and exploiting residual magic to their own ends.
In both cases, the act of acquiring more spell slots is "initiation" — casters are aware when they have attained a new spell level (which they may call "orders" or "circles" or even "levels" depending on their tradition). Your level of initiation determines much of your status in any magical society (guilds, temples, etc).
According to some of these descriptions, detect magic and a good enough Knowledge(arcana) or Spellcraft roll might allow an experienced arcanist to examine a colleague's aura and identify what spells he has prepared.
Detect magic is not tuned enough to sense those specific patterns. Arcane sight allows detection of spellcasting ablities and highest power available (the type and "size" of matrices") but still fails to recognize exact contents of matrices.
Spell-like abilities are also innate matrices imprinted in particular creatures but are triggered without the usual components and powered on an individual basis.
Spinoff from this thread.
It's just as stupid (or not stupid) as "I forgot how to cast that spell". Remember, wizards don't just use up spell slots when they cast a spell - otherwise they'd be able to cast them again the next day without their book. They actually forget how to cast it. Forgetting how to read someone else's magical writing seems like it'd be right along the same lines.
This is not the only possible interpretation of the ambiguous rules. Here's my interpretation (no more valid than yours, but easier to believe, I think):Using a literal reading of the Pathfinder rules (and ignoring the "memory" terminology from earlier editions), I treat spells as discrete, intangible objects constructed at preparation time and carried around on the caster's aura until discharged.
Therefore magic is not viewed as a "skill". Casters know exactly how many spell slots they have based on their own rituals and initiations. They think of spells in the same terms we do.
This description is far more coherent than the "memory" model, and reflects accurately not only the behavior of spell slots, but of expendable and permanent items. I submit it for the general improvement of your game-world.
I like that way of looking at it much better. And now that I go re-read the Magic section with that in mind, I can see how phrases like "Certain other events ... can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind" don't necessarily have the memory-based interpretation I was reading into it.
This comes up all the time, and I love discussing it: the magic rules aren't actually that weird or counter-intuitive. People are just ingrained in old explanations with didn't make much sense — mainly the whole "memory" explanation of spells.
I am a big fan of looking at the magic rules as currently printed, then interpreting what it must be like to live in that world — untainted by Gygaxian terminology. Once you make that leap, Pathfinder Magic is actually really cool and different.
So let's have a discussion! Taking the magic rules at face value:
# How does magic "work" in your world?
# What in-character descriptions do you use to get your head around Pathfinder magic?I am especially interested in hearing descriptions that clarify the rules and make them seem "real" instead of abstract. I'm less interested in hearing about changes people have made to the magic system... I'd like to stick to common ground, description we can all use with the RAW.
I have used the hanging magic concept for decades (I never did like the fire and forget concept talk about poorly worded...)
The groups with which I game rarely use RAW/RAI as often we find little niggles in the crunch that do not sit well with us.But we have always viewed magic as both an art and a science.
Its not enough that you "know" how magic works; You have to have a talent for it as well. But this is coming from an old timer still getting a grip on the new rules...so take what I say with a grain... (i recommend a single malt double shot).
Magic does not work quite the same way it used too. The core mechanics are still there... X number of spells per level per day... the fluff has altered slightly (hanging vs re-memorization). but the big change is how the spells themselves work... Back in the day I preformed a classic think outside the box moment in AD&D involving a dragon; a village and the spell Feather Fall that can never work now thanks to rewording in the spell. (ask me about it some time I may tell you). It is those unique & unintended but inspired uses of spells that separated talented casters from the scientific ones. Sometimes I think that in eliminating the vagueness of some aspects of magic the designers have inadvertently taken away the art involved.
Yeesh look at that I have rambled...
Typical old fart...
Anyway in the context of Pathfinder...
Magic has not come up much as yet for our group (only 2 sessions in and no caster in the party).
It will take some time to get a feel for how magic works in the game... but our attitude is magic is as much an ART as it is a Science.
Oh, yeah, and let us not forget to consider divine magic, alchemists, and other non-wizard cases. For some reason, wizards always seem to dominate the conversations on magic, when in fact they are a minority of casters!
Witches work the same as Wizards except they store their knowledge require to weave spell matrices in their Familars and the process of preparing the spell is actually a cooperation between Witch and Familiar.
Alchemist use the general principles above as well but are incapable of weaving matrices in themselves and instead use certain qualities of their alchemical components to create physical matrices that are already empowered with magic - extracts.
In my own description, there isn't really a difference in the fundamental structure of a divine spell compared to an arcane one. They are both still "intangible objects" — I actually call them dweomers — and they require spell components for the same reason and behave similarly (as they do).
By dweomer you mean prepared but uncast spell stored within the spellcaster? (or what I named above matrix)
I do agree that arcane and divine spells have no differnece in internal structure from cosmological point of view. Only their process of creation differs (temporary creation of the mortal caster, permanent impring drawn from supernatural heritage or divine source, temporary weaving provided by deity).
I also go with the preparation method, which is the official way spells work in pathfinder (at least the prepared spells, not the spontaneous sorcery):
In the morning, you prepare the spells you want to use that day. You basically cast most of the spell at that time: You gather the powers the spell needs and uses in your head, give them shape, bind them, and leave them hanging in there ready to be unleashed.
The part you do during the day is but the trigger to unleash this energy.
Personally, if I were to do a new system (PF2e, or my own RPG, or whatever), I'd do something similar to the magic in the Dresden Files.
By dweomer you mean prepared but uncast spell stored within the spellcaster? (or what I named above matrix)
Wow, I actually jumped on your use of "matrices" at the top of the post.
It's a great term for spells prepared at a certain level! It implies multiple things though, so I might not call a single spell a matrix, but rather all of a caster's third level spells might be "the third matrix".
Of course, we'll never settle on new terms to describe things like Spell levels, Spell slots, etc. People already have their own preferences, I suppose. I'm still highly interested in a Chronicles product that goes into specifics about Golarion magic on this level...
Yes, I did use Dweomer to mean "uncast spell", it is a horrible choice of word since it already has a meaning (sort of) in the mechanics.
Hey, let's have a list!
Spell level
Caster level
Spell slot
Slots per day
Prepared spell
...
other terms that might like IC equivalents...
Anyway. In my description, how do spontaneous casters work? They still have a certain number of discrete (uncast spells) that they can carry around, but they don't need to prepare them. There's also a heavy implication about "blood" in spontaneous casting, or at least there was. How does this work? Is the caster herself somehow an embodiment of the preparation that others must undergo? Is it effectively that they super-prepared the spell when they learned it, and so now all they need is the energy to trigger it, which is still finite?
Has anyone given any consideration to why there is no exchange rates for spell levels? What causes spells to be split into 9 levels? What does metamagic mean?
Questions, questions. I could ramble all day.
But that system is real hard to balance. Instead, I think that magical floaty orbs exist in a wizard's aura that can be filled with spells.
Funny, I never actually said this, but "magical floaty orbs" is exacty what I picture. Anyone else?
I guess it just makes sense that once cast, these "orbs" become the auras that you see with detect magic. I guess picturing detect magic somehow primed me to think about it this way.
I also go with the preparation method, which is the official way spells work in pathfinder (at least the prepared spells, not the spontaneous sorcery):
But KY, what's it look like to the character? How do casters understan their own magic to operate? What terms do they use?
|
|
I only recently learnt that the old D&D magic system was ripped from the 'Dying Earth' books by Jack Vance (who I'd never heard of before the phrase 'Vancian' was used so much I went and googled it...). Both the 'forgetting spells as you cast them' and 'spells are maths' came from them... and that they're actually more science fantasy (being set in the far future, with the implication being that 'spells' are actually the remnants of super-science) than, you know, fantasy fantasy... which makes it an even weirder choice to have based D&D magic on...
In any case, I never liked either aspect (forgetting spells or spells-as-maths), and usually changed the fluff into something a little more... well... magical. The Pathfinder fluff is actually quite close to the sort of stuff I'd change it to anyhow (one criteria of such a fluff change being to not change the actual mechanical system... 'cos that's a real effort...): Wizards cast all spells as 'rituals' which take some time, but have developed the technique to leave the very last few phrases, gestures, components, whatever incomplete - thus the whole 'hanging spell' thing. The actual spell ritual is 'cast' when they prepare the spells, the in-game 'casting action' is just the last bit to 'trigger' the spell. 'Spells as rituals' fits in with the actual mythology of magic you find in most cultures a lot better than the 'spells as superpowers' which RPG spellcasting often becomes.
Clerics do similar 'preparation' rituals asking for their deity's blessings - but that's always been easier to understand: it's not the cleric's power, it's the power of their god channelled through the cleric, so it seems to make more sense for it to be limited to a few a day.
Oracles, as spontaneous divine casters, channel a similar power: but the oracle / cleric relationship is similar to the historic prophet / priest relationship of the judeo-christian-islamic theological tradition. Oracles have a direct line to their god, clerics have a line based on the ritual of their religious framework.
Sorcerers are a lot better explained in Pathfinder than in previous editions - the source of their power is spelled out in their particular bloodline. They don't use rituals, because their power is within them - they're part supernatural.
Of course, a lot of that fluff is happy living in my head - it's not really needed during game sessions and the like.
Description-wise, I like to make spells a little distinctive for each caster, if possible, sometimes based on stuff like the material components they use (or don't use) and the like. As long as the mechanical aspects don't change, the descriptive fluff can be put to good use in making the game more interesting! There's little less interesting than a DM saying, 'He casts a Magic Missile at you...' - I want to know what the damn thing looks like, sounds like - does it create a tangible hum of power in the air as it hovers by the caster for a moment, before zipping off to its target? Magic is the key schtick for casters - it deserves to be described well.
The closest thing to magic-as-science that I want to see in most Pathfinder games is the alchemist... who's closer to being a Victorian-era character (what with all the explosives and the whole My Hyde thing going on) than he is to a traditional pseudo-Medieval fantasy character anyway.
Wow, I actually jumped on your use of "matrices" at the top of the post.
It's a great term for spells prepared at a certain level! It implies multiple things though, so I might not call a single spell a matrix, but rather all of a caster's third level spells might be "the third matrix".
Credit for such use of word matrix goes to Earthdawn where matrix is a immaterial construct of astral energies roughly equivalent to D&D spell slot. Every ED spellcaster has one or more matrices floating around him in Astral Plane into which he weaves spell in a complex process. Casting actual spell requires the caster to weave magical threads into the matrix to power the spell but, unlike D&D casting does not erease the spell - it can be cast as soon as more threads are woven into it again. And yes, "matrix", "weaving" and "threads" are mechanical terms and in-character terms.
Unlike the D&D slots for spell preparation matrices, are somehow tangible objects for those capable of reaching Astral Plane (which is paralel plane more akin to Ethereal/Shadow Plane of D&D). Some clasess and monsters have specific abilities that allow attacking matrices to erease spells held within.
Yes, I did use Dweomer to mean "uncast spell", it is a horrible choice of word since it already has a meaning (sort of) in the mechanics.
Hey, let's have a list!
Spell level
Caster level
Spell slot
Slots per day
Prepared spell
...
other terms that might like IC equivalents...
I usually insist on using spell circle instead of spell level term.
Is the caster herself somehow an embodiment of the preparation that others must undergo? Is it effectively that they super-prepared the spell when they learned it, and so now all they need is the energy to trigger it, which is still finite?
Something like that. Considering it something like a permanent preparation that is not ereased with each casting explains why sorcerer uses the same list as wizard when the mechanics for the casting are different instead of having completly separate spells.
Has anyone given any consideration to why there is no exchange rates for spell levels? What causes spells to be split into 9 levels? What does metamagic mean?
I think sometimes about devising additive spell-slots (those who played UFO think about backpack that had multiple slots with each object taking certain amount of slots, depending upon their size and shape).
Metamagics are interchangable "procedures" that can be applied to different spells to modify them. They alter the matrices at the cost of pushing the spell into higher order of energy. Spontaneous spellcasters have to temporarily twist their matrice and doing so is responsible for extending casting time.
Well, that "higher order of energy" thing started me to think about comparing spell level to orbitals of electrons around atom - each orbital is associated with specific amount of energy and electrons losing/gaining energy switch to different orbitals... Well maybe I think about it later. (scientific English is not my strong suite, especially at 01:25.
Funny, I never actually said this, but "magical floaty orbs" is exacty what I picture. Anyone else?
I rather think about them as 3D patterns of interlocking, glowing lines of magical energy or complex puzzles. Actually Naaru from Warcraft could work for me as visible sapient epic spells.
Wow, everyone here has a radically different idea on spells from me... I've never considered any of this. When I imagine spell casting, it's always that the magic comes from the other planes (or the material plane if applicable).
You know how you can manipulate RNGs in some video games by performing seemingly irrelevant tasks that change values in the system (IE: MissingNo. from Pokemon)...? I imagine magic like that, and the various components are the "irrelevant" tasks that lead to the desired outcome. Screwing one little thing up in them can cause the values to come out wrong and lose your spell.
I never imagine the magic as inherent in a person, because then everyone would radiate some level of magic, and then you get into the whole midichlorian count thing. That's messy. Except for sorcerers, but I figure that's more like having threads running from their fingertips into other dimensions. They have more direct access to the energy behind their spell, but the places they can reach into are limited by those threads.
So the spells don't even exist until they are 'unlocked' by the caster. The energy has to be manipulated first.
Explanation for the number of spells per day is the taxation on the body. I figure that's standard. Obviously there are some gaps in the logic (such as the differentiation between prepared casting and spontaneous), but it has never come up. I don't think I've ever shared these ideas with my players, either. It's just understood that it's magic and we may not understand it. I would actually encourage my players to fluff their magic however they want to add flavor to the game.
|
In the beginning, the gods made the universe, but they couldn't just snap their fingers to do so, they had to make *tools.*
Those 'tools' involved words of power, true names for each thing, archetypal patterns, from which all lesser things are distorted shadows, configurations of elemental energy drawn from the various planes of raw, unrefined seething potential, etc. all bound together through formula and philosophical acts of engineering.
Much later, some of the lesser races looked up from squabbling over trinkets in the mud, and realized that there was something just beyond their reach, something which had been left abandoned after the creation of the universe. And so the 'tools' of creation were fumblingly discovered, and inexpertly used, sometimes to disastrous effect, by the mortal races, who called these individual tools 'spells,' and the use of them 'magic.'
Magic is the system architecture of the fantasy world, and spells are the individual commands and codes.
Of course, everything but Limited Wish, Miracle and Wish are basically training wheels. :)
|
|
So let's have a discussion! Taking the magic rules at face value:
# How does magic "work" in your world?
# What in-character descriptions do you use to get your head around Pathfinder magic?
I am mostly in agreement with some of the sentiments above, when it comes to the idea of "ritual" casters. Each day, a prepared caster performs a ritual(s) in which they beseech/summon/invoke/petition some supernatural entity(ies) or force(s) for certain powers. The number of powers obtained is limited by the individual caster's inherent power (mana) and personal skill level (experience).
Intelligence-based casters improve mostly through study. They research the methods and techniques of their predecessors, though this does not preclude trial and error.
Wisdom-based casters improve through intuitive methods in which they attempt to unify or attune with the source of power.
Charisma-based casters have an inborn magical talent. They don't need rituals because their natural affinity with the spirits/entities is such that the attraction of powers does not require a mechanical stimulus. Their knowledge of powers, however, is subject to their own mental limitations and the willingness of their power source to enlighten them.
|
Wizards, much like others have said, prepare the spells and leave them "hanging", just requiring a few words/gestures for activation. (And yes, I also started seeing it that way after reading the Chronicles of Amber.)
Sorcerors are basically raw power. Magic just innately flows through their bodies, and the spells they cast are ways they have learned to control and channel the power.
Interesting side note: Keith Baker (designer of Eberron) was talking about the idea that magic as we know it is the refined version. A thousand years ago (or a hundred, or ten thousand, whatever you prefer) people cast the same spells, but they might take longer, or require a higher spell slot. Nowadays, thanks to many spellcasters spending many hours researching and refining the spells, they've managed to work out the most efficient ways of casting them. "Hey guys! That fireball spell is so much easier to cast if you use bat crap!"
This also gives me a great mental image of wizards sticking all kinds of things in their mouths to see if it helps a spell. (How else did someone work out that eating a spider helps with Spider Climb?)
I have always viewed the components of spells as completely unnecessary, They act as focuses (of concentration) for the Wizard to channel the magical energies. (otherwise why would feats such as eschew materials exist?)
I just let my players come up with whatever works for them. I do not have one universal outlook on magic. More like Mage: The Acension, everyone has their own interpretation of why it works, complex formula, ritual motions, hanging matrixes, stored energy... whatever.
It is one of the reasons why it takes spellcraft to learn a spell from another wizzies spellbook. They process the info differently. It is all selfinterpretive. Everyone's fireball is a bit different. stats are the same, but just a lil' different from one caster to the next. Just like artists trying to paint the same picture.
Greg
In my LARP, the level of the spell is the amount of mana it costs. We refer to spells ingame as spell of the X circle (where X is the level). When one asks "How many simple spells can you cast?" they are asking how much mana you have.
In my LARP, the level of the spell is the amount of mana it costs. We refer to spells ingame as spell of the X circle (where X is the level). When one asks "How many simple spells can you cast?" they are asking how much mana you have.
the only smart reply to that question is "enough."
How popular is "Circles" as a stand-in for spell level, I wonder?
Has anyone looked at non-obvious explanations for the per diem nature of spells and abilities? Simple fatigue would be the obvious explanation, but effects like the ring of sustenance betray that this is a sheer game-balance consideration. Or is it?
One of my favorite "fluff hacks" is that I have tied all magic to astrology in a fundamental way, such that spell preparation and magical abilities require a full rotation of the planet before you can replenish them.
Anybody have their own metaphysics to explain away the per diem aspects of magic?
@Foghammer: Oh, my magic is planar alright! My problem is, it isn't wrong before I run into trouble with how the different planes relate to the different schools of magic. Necromancy, Evocation, and Conjuration all have some pretty obvious planar relationships, but once you start defining them you end up with a bunch of spells that seem to be in the wrong school! Plus, as a huge planescape fan I have had to throw out a large amount of descriptive material when we switched to the Great Beyond cosmology. It's a shame.
How popular is "Circles" as a stand-in for spell level, I wonder?
since 74...at least one out of every 5 groups uses it according to my long and purely anecdotal observations.
Has anyone looked at non-obvious explanations for the per diem nature of spells and abilities? Simple fatigue would be the obvious explanation, but effects like the ring of sustenance betray that this is a sheer game-balance consideration. Or is it?
One of my favorite "fluff hacks" is that I have tied all magic to astrology in a fundamental way, such that spell preparation and magical abilities require a full rotation of the planet before you can replenish them.
Anybody have their own metaphysics to explain away the per diem aspects of magic?
Close as I get is its not so much a physical exhaustion as a mental/spiritual one. You (the mage) are manipulating the funadmental building blocks of the cosmos, this requires a level of concentration to channel said arcane energies. The energies rip through the mind and soul of a caster before they reach their destination and produce their effects. These energies are not meant to be used by mere mortals. Hence the per diem nature. (I personally much prefer a spell point system but that is crunch talk not fluff).
Close as I get is its not so much a physical exhaustion as a mental/spiritual one. You (the mage) are manipulating the funadmental building blocks of the cosmos, this requires a level of concentration to channel said arcane energies. The energies rip through the mind and soul of a caster before they reach their destination and produce their effects. These energies are not meant to be used by mere mortals. Hence the per diem nature. (I personally much prefer a spell point system but that is crunch talk not fluff).Has anyone looked at non-obvious explanations for the per diem nature of spells and abilities? Simple fatigue would be the obvious explanation, but effects like the ring of sustenance betray that this is a sheer game-balance consideration. Or is it?
One of my favorite "fluff hacks" is that I have tied all magic to astrology in a fundamental way, such that spell preparation and magical abilities require a full rotation of the planet before you can replenish them.
Anybody have their own metaphysics to explain away the per diem aspects of magic?
Slightly related topic. Unearthed Arcana had a spell point system that made you fatigued or exhausted as you ran out. Resting brought them back up.
Spell points aren't welcome here. Get yer own thread.
Viva la Vance!
Slightly related topic. Unearthed Arcana had a spell point system that made you fatigued or exhausted as you ran out. Resting brought them back up.Close as I get is its not so much a physical exhaustion as a mental/spiritual one. You (the mage) are manipulating the funadmental building blocks of the cosmos, this requires a level of concentration to channel said arcane energies. The energies rip through the mind and soul of a caster before they reach their destination and produce their effects. These energies are not meant to be used by mere mortals. Hence the per diem nature. (I personally much prefer a spell point system but that is crunch talk not fluff).Has anyone looked at non-obvious explanations for the per diem nature of spells and abilities? Simple fatigue would be the obvious explanation, but effects like the ring of sustenance betray that this is a sheer game-balance consideration. Or is it?
One of my favorite "fluff hacks" is that I have tied all magic to astrology in a fundamental way, such that spell preparation and magical abilities require a full rotation of the planet before you can replenish them.
Anybody have their own metaphysics to explain away the per diem aspects of magic?
well aware of it.
I had always thought that, you cast a good portion of the spell and stored he energy then with a final word released the spells and that the slots for the wizard represented the ability to store that magic.
ive always also though that every wizard stored his spells in his book in obscure shorthand sort of like Davince's backwards righting and whatnot and that this was why other wizards had to make skill checks to use another wizards book because they had to interpet whats there.
I had always thought that, you cast a good portion of the spell and stored he energy then with a final word released the spells and that the slots for the wizard represented the ability to store that magic.
That's how I see it too. A person with Use Magic Device understands magic and can cast it to a degree of proficiency, but they just can't carry around a finished spell on their own soul. They rely on someone else to create the spell, and a magic device to carry it around, but they have no trouble triggering the spell or in some cases casting it completely... they just have nowhere to store it because they haven't initiated.
ive always also though that every wizard stored his spells in his book in obscure shorthand sort of like Davince's backwards righting and whatnot and that this was why other wizards had to make skill checks to use another wizards book because they had to interpet whats there.
Far be it from me to tell you what your wizards can or cannot do, but... it follows (for me) that wizards could learn and share spells more easily if they used a common language system. Would members of the same college or guild be able to share spells without rolling? I think the "impenetrable" quality of written magic owes more to a now-unexplained feature of magic inherited from older versions of the game. This feature is almost entirely irrelevant to modern play. When was the last time you cast read magic in a game? I can tell you, I haven't, for a very, very, very long time.
This one's pretty good, too.
[/threadjack]
Threads' broken...
EDIT: I meant links' broken.
Far be it from me to tell you what your wizards can or cannot do, but... it follows (for me) that wizards could learn and share spells more easily if they used a common language system. Would members of the same college or guild be able to share spells without rolling? I think the "impenetrable" quality of written magic owes more to a now-unexplained feature of magic inherited from older versions of the game. This feature is almost entirely irrelevant to modern play. When was the last time you cast read magic in a game? I can tell you, I haven't, for a very, very, very long time.
Last time My wizard found several arcane scrolls in a treasure horde. (so that would be 8 to 10 years ago... lol)
Using a literal reading of the Pathfinder rules (and ignoring the "memory" terminology from earlier editions), I treat spells as discrete, intangible objects constructed at preparation time and carried around on the caster's aura until discharged.
Therefore magic is not viewed as a "skill". Casters know exactly how many spell slots they have based on their own rituals and initiations. They think of spells in the same terms we do.
This description is far more coherent than the "memory" model, and reflects accurately not only the behavior of spell slots, but of expendable and permanent items. I submit it for the general improvement of your game-world.
+1
You just rocked my (fantasy) world!
Now that I think about it, Pathfinder books all refer to "preparing" spells, not memorizing them. I thought that memorizing spells and forgetting them when they're cast was stupid when I read it the first time, when I was ten years old. Now everything is . . . less stupid.
To add to it a little, I do aura viewing in real life. Could be retinal fatigue, could be magic -- couldn't really tell you.
Oooo. You're nuts! In a good way!
Shadowrun adopted "real life" aura reading as a system... and I believe there was something in old White Wolf stuff too.
Pathfinder auras are all about schools and alignment, though. We did some work matching colors to the schools in this thread.
Cool idea about shells. I like Orbs too. And Matrices.
|
How popular is "Circles" as a stand-in for spell level, I wonder?
I've heard Circle used before. My personal favorite is Order, as in 'a spell of the Fourth Order'. 'Magnitude' also works for me. I think I heard another term used for magic weapons, but I cannot recall. Maybe Tier? A +5 weapon is called a Fifth Tier enchanted blade?
Either way, great thread. Hope to read it more indepth after work.
|
|
How popular is "Circles" as a stand-in for spell level, I wonder?
I like Mysteries or Orders. 'To create an explosive ball of fire is a spell of the third mystery.' 'You must master spells of the fourth order to be able to animate the bodies of the dead.'
For magic items, referring to a +2 sword as 'twice-enchanted' or a +3 breastplate as 'thrice-forged' sounds cooler to me.
I like Orders a lot too. Just mathematical enough without crossing that line...
Since Set threw out IC names for items, I should mention my standards: Cure potions are just "The Cure" in singel, dubbel, and Tripel strengths (brewed by clergy!).
Weapons are Apprentice (+1), Journeyman*(+2, +3), and Master (+4, +5) mage-wrought or priest-wrought weapons. Substances and bonuses both are referred to in some regions by the kinds of creatures they can actually hurt, for example a silver weapon might be called "devilworth". The ludicrously-named "Amulet of natural armor" is always a dragonscale amulet... that last one must be my single biggest naming peeve in all of Pathfinder.
*also "jack-blade", "jack-a-knave", or just "knave"