|
An intriguing idea fron an ENworld post:
Sometimes the balancing factor for wizards is that they are very powerful against specific types of obstacles or foes (generally magical or supernatural ones), but have no more power over the rest of the universe than any other person. In other words you fight magic with magic and mundane with mundane.
A wizard can bind or banish a ghost or demon that others are powerless against. But he can't do much against a mundane evil warrior with a sword unless he's also a trained warrior himself and has good weapon at hand. If he has any power over mortals or the natural world it's either brief and minor or slow and insidious. Hexes, curses, potions, or hedge magic. And there are protections to be found from these by consulting another mage or sporting a charm or holy symbol.
Likewise, his buddy the fighter migh carve the evil warrior up handily, but against a raging demon, he'd be ineffective. All he can do is get in it's face and try do distract it so the wizard can hit it with magic. Or he needs a wizard to enchant his weapons and armor so he can stand toe to toe with a magical monster.
In D&D terms you might say that a demon or other supernatural creature has damge reduction (or even invulnerability) against normal attakcs, but vulnerability to magical ones. Hit it with an ordiary sword and it has little to no effect. Hit is with a magical sword or a spell of rebuke and it suffers - moreso than a mortal human being would.
I see this as the anser to "Gandalf was a 5th level magic user that soloed a Balor." In the setting, the Balor is particularly vulernable to magic, as was the Nazgul that Gandalf turned back at Pellenor Fields. Those methods were not useful against the orcs of Moria so he had to rely on his sword.
Also, the more powerful the magic, the more specific it's effects. The Witch King could not be harmed by any man, but the loophole in the magic that protected him made him totally vulnerable against a female warrior. You get that kind of powerful, specific protetion, or you get something minor like a +2 weapon that is more likely to hit and do more damage against just about anything, but isn't going to cleave through a castle gate or hew the peak off a mountaintop.
What if you built a game around such concept? The wizard's most powerful spells affecting the world maybe shield or magic missile or, basically, zero and first level spells. The bulk of their spells would then focus on, well, magic: read magic, antimagic field, arcane mark, banishment, reveal true shape, etc. Powerful spells that affect the mundane world (e.g., fireball) could be cast as either a ritual or "created" like a one-shot magic item (i.e., lots of time to prep, costly in terms of rare material components, etc.)
What if you built a game around such concept? The wizard's most powerful spells affecting the world maybe shield or magic missile or, basically, zero and first level spells. The bulk of their spells would then focus on, well, magic: read magic, antimagic field, arcane mark, banishment, reveal true shape, etc. Powerful spells that affect the mundane world (e.g., fireball) could be cast as either a ritual or "created" like a one-shot magic item (i.e., lots of time to prep, costly in terms of rare material components, etc.)
They did. It's called Ars Magica. Mind you, as you progress, wizards become much better at handling the mundane, but I've seen wizards 30 years out of Gauntlet take a halberd to the face or a mace while they were incapacitated, and simply be done.
On the upside, the campaign world is 13C Europe, so the whole history section at your bookstore and huge chunks of wikipedia become supplementary materials.
-Ben.
|
|
What if you built a game around such concept? The wizard's most powerful spells affecting the world maybe shield or magic missile or, basically, zero and first level spells. The bulk of their spells would then focus on, well, magic: read magic, antimagic field, arcane mark, banishment, reveal true shape, etc. Powerful spells that affect the mundane world (e.g., fireball) could be cast as either a ritual or "created" like a one-shot magic item (i.e., lots of time to prep, costly in terms of rare material components, etc.)They did. It's called Ars Magica. Mind you, as you progress, wizards become much better at handling the mundane, but I've seen wizards 30 years out of Gauntlet take a halberd to the face or a mace while they were incapacitated, and simply be done.
On the upside, the campaign world is 13C Europe, so the whole history section at your bookstore and huge chunks of wikipedia become supplementary materials.
-Ben.
Is that game still around? Been a while since I've seen any mention it.
I like the idea. Was reminded at another site with the same thread that the other classes would have to be adjusted as well. Rogues, for example, probably don't need evasion: if wizards aren't shooting fireballs, what's the point? Bards and their spells? Forget it. Isn't there a spell-less variant somewhere?
Is that game still around? Been a while since I've seen any mention it.
Yes it is.
I'm about to participate in a 5th edition game in a week and a half from now.
Your idea is interesting but your baseing everything off of Lord of the Rings?
If you look at the actual myths that tolkein based his world on you'd find that wizards are able to affect the natural world quite well.
cyrcy for example in the classic greek myths turned men into various animals.
The russian myths concerning the "singers at the worlds dawn" were absoulte power when they sang. Turning the ground around their enemies into quicksand was a favorite trick for them.
The witch Baba Yaga had no problems affecting anything she wanted to.
Look at the celtic myths for more ideas.
Wizards and witches have power. that power means that they can help or harm anything and everything as they desire.
|
|
Your idea is interesting but your baseing everything off of Lord of the Rings?
If you look at the actual myths that tolkein based his world on you'd find that wizards are able to affect the natural world quite well.
cyrcy for example in the classic greek myths turned men into various animals.
The russian myths concerning the "singers at the worlds dawn" were absoulte power when they sang. Turning the ground around their enemies into quicksand was a favorite trick for them.
The witch Baba Yaga had no problems affecting anything she wanted to.Look at the celtic myths for more ideas.
Wizards and witches have power. that power means that they can help or harm anything and everything as they desire.
Not just LotR. Looking for a way to move the wizard from its "artillery" role found in most rpgs and more towards the mentor/knowledge/sage role like in most myths. Think about the examples above: did most of them go "Conan" and go traveling about, slaughtering, whoring, etc., just for greed? They tended to be more "plot devices" for the (usually) non-magical heroes to bypass/overcome/defeat. I'm looking more at a wizard class that's probably closer to the 3.x/Pathfinder cleric (ala the "leader" role in 4e parlance) than the walking arsenal found in rpgs.
Is that game still around? Been a while since I've seen any mention it.
Yes it is.
I'm about to participate in a 5th edition game in a week and a half from now.
And I really hope so, or this deadline I'm working on is a really cruel trick. ;)
-Ben.
|
|
Is that game still around? Been a while since I've seen any mention it.
Yes it is.
I'm about to participate in a 5th edition game in a week and a half from now.
And I really hope so, or this deadline I'm working on is a really cruel trick. ;)
-Ben.
How do the Ars Magica wizards, which, btw, are the major class in the game, function without being so-called "major artillery" ala DnD 3.x/Pathfinder wizards?
|
I see this as the anser to "Gandalf was a 5th level magic user that soloed a Balor." In the setting, the Balor is particularly vulernable to magic, as was the Nazgul that Gandalf turned back at Pellenor Fields. Those methods were not useful against the orcs of Moria so he had to rely on his sword.
If by 'Defeated the Balor' you mean he broke the bridge in half with his spell, and the Balor failed its Reflex save to avoid falling, and took umpteen thousand d6 fall dmg, and then Galdalf hit it once, with a magical sword that had just been charged by a BOLT OF LIGHTNING, then yes, he did.
If by 'the nazgul he turned back' you mean it has Light Sensetivity, and he cast Light/ Daylight from his staff, then yes.
lol ;)
|
|
I see this as the anser to "Gandalf was a 5th level magic user that soloed a Balor." In the setting, the Balor is particularly vulernable to magic, as was the Nazgul that Gandalf turned back at Pellenor Fields. Those methods were not useful against the orcs of Moria so he had to rely on his sword.
If by 'Defeated the Balor' you mean he broke the bridge in half with his spell, and the Balor failed its Reflex save to avoid falling, and took umpteen thousand d6 fall dmg, and then Galdalf hit it once, with a magical sword that had just been charged by a BOLT OF LIGHTNING, then yes, he did.
If by 'the nazgul he turned back' you mean it has Light Sensetivity, and he cast Light/ Daylight from his staff, then yes.
lol ;)
ROFLHO. Nice ^_^
How do the Ars Magica wizards, which, btw, are the major class in the game, function without being so-called "major artillery" ala DnD 3.x/Pathfinder wizards?
Combat is radically different in several ways. There are wizards who the major artillery role, but what you have to realize is that there really aren't any equivalent mechanics to saving throws. Magic works unless you have magic resistance, and even then, magic works if it's powerful enough to penetrate your magic resistance. Durations are fundamentally different as well, and healing is a much different situation. Instant healing spells are really nonexistent. Magic is a lot like the Words of Power, but...it has 20+ years of playtest behind it, compared to Words of Power. Magic can be cast on the fly, which is less powerful (generally), formulaically, which is most common and fairly powerful, and ritual spells, which can take hours, be cast cooperatively but provide the largest effects.
You can ignore wounds and function until you die, you can take any number of wounds until you take one sufficiently bad enough to kill you, you just might not be very useful without magical help. Grogs (your general not-wizard types) can have a very short life expectancy. Companions are different, they're like cohorts, but everyone has one and often you play someone else's. They run a very wide range of options. In that sense, it's cool because you have 3 or more characters you develop, rather than just one. And a usually a stronghold, too.
As far as effects go, though, you can do some really cool stuff. Pull up towers out of the ground, destroy castles, cause whole groups to grab their face with their hand and hold it for a moon. But because of that power, stories are often tailored to the strengths of the troupe. Some magi might not even know a formulaic combat spell, but most know at least one.
The setting is 13C Europe. There are Crusades, Mongols, the edge of the map and the crazy people inside its boundaries. The "creatures" are drawn from five options-- mundanes, Divine creatures (Angels, Nephillim, churchmen, etc), Infernal creatures (demons, corrupted creatures), Faerie creatures (Really almost anything in a fable), and Magical creatures (often things like dragons, elementals, genius loci or ancient myths, but they are just as often fae). You do a lot of rolling your own badguys, but a code of conduct prevents magi from just steamrolling civilization...well, that and the Divine...and the Infernal...
And the scale of the game runs in years, rather than days. Adventures might take a few days, but the fundamental unit of time is a season.
It's a great game, I love writing for it. :D
-Ben.