I'm sick of all the magic spells. IMHO it makes zero sense that Elves existing in the world doesn't also imply they have their own distinct magic (I know mechanically it will resemble other magic), with their own distinct flavor, not sure if I showed you guys a spell I modified to feel "Aztec". The ritual is different, the name is different, but in the end it's just a magic missile if you pay attention.

IMHO the changes are enough to give it a different flavor which might help with immersion and to make the game/setting stand out as something other than vanilla fantasy.

What have you done (Besides Pundit's Medieval Authentic) to address this in your games?

Effects-based have long established that trappings can be changed without changing mechanics. Make the trappings fit the caster/invoker/manifester, and so long as the mechanics are unaltered, all should be fine. Watch out for "trappings" that are clever tricks to get around mechanics "like silent and invisible manifestations, and spells that are "subvocalized" or somatic components that only involve very subtle movements. Those are actually (in many systems) mechanical changes.

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 28, 2021, 12:27:39 PM
Effects-based have long established that trappings can be changed without changing mechanics. Make the trappings fit the caster/invoker/manifester, and so long as the mechanics are unaltered, all should be fine. Watch out for "trappings" that are clever tricks to get around mechanics "like silent and invisible manifestations, and spells that are "subvocalized" or somatic components that only involve very subtle movements. Those are actually (in many systems) mechanical changes.

All spells/powers are in the end effect based even if the game/setting says otherwise.

I'm not looking for a way to have the player choose their thing. I'm writting down spells that mimic the classic D&D ones but with different trappings. Different enough they feel innovative even if they're not.

You mention one of the pitfalls of purelly effects based systems. A clever player can sometimes get one past you.

Which is why I'm asking for what others have done, to see if they can spark some inspiration for my own efforts.

Limited spell lists.

One of the biggest contributions to the generic uniformity of magic in D&D was the creation of a generalist mage in 2nd edition, and the assumption that real wizards can potentially cast any arcane spell. If you want illusionists to feel different from death masters and incantatrices, and if you want elven magic to feel very different from dwarven magic, then create new custom classes with little or no overlap in spells, and they'll feel more distinct. This will also encourage a wider range of magics in the game, since players can't just cherry pick the same best spells every time.

The Basic D&D approach of 8 or 12 spells per spell level for the primary spellcasting classes, and 6 or even 4 for the secondary spellcasting classes, is a step in the right direction. But you don't even need that many spells for viable spellcasting classes. Ditch the generalist magic-user entirely, and create a handful of spell lists for different magical traditions. Try 4 spells per spell level. With a mix of offensive and utility spells, that's enough for variety and real choices, and it's constrained enough that it's easy for the DM to create new classes on the fly. Specialty casters (like bladesingers) might have only 2 per level.

For a bonus, you could give each new custom class a different method of casting spells. Some might use spell books, some might hang spells, others might casting spells by dancing instead of speech, others might use words of power, and so on. But this is less important than the limited spell lists.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 12:32:22 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 28, 2021, 12:27:39 PM
Effects-based have long established that trappings can be changed without changing mechanics. Make the trappings fit the caster/invoker/manifester, and so long as the mechanics are unaltered, all should be fine. Watch out for "trappings" that are clever tricks to get around mechanics "like silent and invisible manifestations, and spells that are "subvocalized" or somatic components that only involve very subtle movements. Those are actually (in many systems) mechanical changes.

All spells/powers are in the end effect based even if the game/setting says otherwise.

I'm not looking for a way to have the player choose their thing. I'm writting down spells that mimic the classic D&D ones but with different trappings. Different enough they feel innovative even if they're not.

You mention one of the pitfalls of purelly effects based systems. A clever player can sometimes get one past you.

Which is why I'm asking for what others have done, to see if they can spark some inspiration for my own efforts.

If you have access, look at what WFRP and Soulbound do with the different Colleges/Winds of Magic. The spells have very similar mechanical effects, but the trappings for the spells of a Jade Wizard are very different from those of a Gold Wizard. Even among those using the same Wind, there are certain spells that are unique to type, like a Seraphon Starpriest uses Celestial Magic just like a Knight-Incantor, but the lizards have several spells unique to them.

I wish D&D had done the same with the Wizard schools, but adding that in after the fact is more effort that I'd want to spend on D&D.

Quote from: Pat on October 28, 2021, 12:36:05 PM
Limited spell lists.

One of the biggest contributions to the generic uniformity of magic in D&D was the creation of a generalist mage in 2nd edition, and the assumption that real wizards can potentially cast any arcane spell. If you want illusionists to feel different from death masters and incantatrices, and if you want elven magic to feel very different from dwarven magic, then create new custom classes with little or no overlap in spells, and they'll feel more distinct. This will also encourage a wider range of magics in the game, since players can't just cherry pick the same best spells every time.

The Basic D&D approach of 8 or 12 spells per spell level for the primary spellcasting classes, and 6 or even 4 for the secondary spellcasting classes, is a step in the right direction. But you don't even need that many spells for viable spellcasting classes. Ditch the generalist magic-user entirely, and create a handful of spell lists for different magical traditions. Try 4 spells per spell level. With a mix of offensive and utility spells, that's enough for variety and real choices, and it's constrained enough that it's easy for the DM to create new classes on the fly. Specialty casters (like bladesingers) might have only 2 per level.

For a bonus, you could give each new custom class a different method of casting spells. Some might use spell books, some might hang spells, others might casting spells by dancing instead of speech, others might use words of power, and so on. But this is less important than the limited spell lists.

Yep, you obviously need to dispense the generalist wizard or risk all the work being in vain.

Reducing the spell number per level is not a bad idea since it also makes my work easier. 

Methods of casting had occurred to me, mainly because it makes no sense to have all MU follow the same script.

Why would a Cleric need to memorize anything in the morning? Why can't he/she just pray to her deity for a miracle? Roll to know how the deity answered, starting with 55% chance of success or something like that.

In DCC Mercurial Magic and Patron Magic do this to an extent. If you're not familial, Mercurial Magic is a unique effect/consequence when -you- cast the spell. Anything from raining frogs to suffering burns or killing someone or whatever. Also, Patrons offer access to their unique spells only if you agree to that relationship.

In DCC and other games, I limit what spells players can have. Starting spells should fit the theme of their character and later spells are learned by finding source material or teachers. So and elf and a wizard will know different spells, perhaps with a bit of overlap.

If we talk about classic arcane magic - then it's quite logical that all world will have the same magic, as it flows from arcane knowledge of how universe works. Those wizards are basically tapping in some cosmic power and doing a lot of maths inside their minds. There is also one mathematics for all reality, and so only one cosmology.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 28, 2021, 12:54:08 PM
In DCC Mercurial Magic and Patron Magic do this to an extent. If you're not familial, Mercurial Magic is a unique effect/consequence when -you- cast the spell. Anything from raining frogs to suffering burns or killing someone or whatever. Also, Patrons offer access to their unique spells only if you agree to that relationship.

In DCC and other games, I limit what spells players can have. Starting spells should fit the theme of their character and later spells are learned by finding source material or teachers. So and elf and a wizard will know different spells, perhaps with a bit of overlap.

Yeah I know about how DCC handles it, had forgotten about the patrons, will give it a re-read, mercurial magic is fun but I would limit it backfiring for the first time you cast a spell or trying to cast it under pressure.

As for the overlap, that's exactly what I would like to eliminate.

For instance Elves should have glamour, as in they can change their looks/size to look like almost anything else. Wizards can't they are limited to illusion making them look different but not really taking the new form.

In exchange take away their thief superpowers, make them unable to touch cold iron and if surrounded by it (as in a cage) they are weakened. It burns them like silver a werewolf.

Glamour is alterself/polymorph self but better. It needs only the will off the Elf to work. Restricted to the Elf having to be very familiar with the thing it wants to become. Make Elves more varied, give them affinities/circles. A woods Elf can effortlesly take the form of the plants of his environment, but not off fish.

Quote from: Wrath of God on October 28, 2021, 12:59:19 PM
If we talk about classic arcane magic - then it's quite logical that all world will have the same magic, as it flows from arcane knowledge of how universe works. Those wizards are basically tapping in some cosmic power and doing a lot of maths inside their minds. There is also one mathematics for all reality, and so only one cosmology.

Even so, shouldn't the way in which they tap into that arcane power be different?

One cosmology, yeah I hear you.

Thing is I'm writting a Maya Fantasy Game. I'm changing the spells to give them the flavor of the setting. Just like I changed the classes and "races" in the world.

Even in classic fantasy Elves have a different kind of magic. Think of a Fetch, Geas, etc. Those come from Faerie tales... Why would a human wizard be able to cast the same spell? Especially in a setting where Faeries aren't a different kind of Human but a totally different species.

The Faerie Queen can create an Elphame, a magical pocket dimension you can only enter if she invites you where time runs different form the real world. Simmilar but not the same as Underhill, the magical dimension where Faeries live. A living dimension from where Faeries draw power but that also draws power from them in such a way that all become stronger.

Accross the world there exist secret entrances to Underhill jealously guarded by Elves. Seelie Faeries aren't always evil but can be terrible if offended/crossed. Unseelie Faeries on the other hand eat children and such.

Seelie Faeries are your high Elves if you will.

So postulate that and then Human Wizards having the ability to cast Elven spells becomes something not internally consistent with the world.

Which by the way is one setting idea I plan on realizing someday.

I tend to use the Savage Worlds idea of "trappings". Let's use a fireball type effect for example:

A mage would cast a ball of flames, much like a typical fireball spell.

A weird scientist might have a device like a giant roman Candle gun that shoots balls that explode into an area effect.

An alchemist might have a phosphorus or similar grenade.

A Psychic might use the power of his mind to agitate molecules to cause an explosion.

In each case, mechanically, they work the same, but all appear very different in game play.

Quote from: Godsmonkey on October 28, 2021, 01:22:24 PM
I tend to use the Savage Worlds idea of "trappings". Let's use a fireball type effect for example:

A mage would cast a ball of flames, much like a typical fireball spell.

A weird scientist might have a device like a giant roman Candle gun that shoots balls that explode into an area effect.

An alchemist might have a phosphorus or similar grenade.

A Psychic might use the power of his mind to agitate molecules to cause an explosion.

In each case, mechanically, they work the same, but all appear very different in game play.

Yes, it is easier when you're dealing with different classes.

Now think of a Wizard in a pseudo medieval Europe setting, he casts spells in a certain way.

Change the setting/world and he should cast different spells (in trappings and maybe beyond) to keep the world internally consistent.

Imagine a World where you're a Maya character, your wizard shouldn't cast Fireball, even if mechanically it's the same spell. IMHO this helps with immersion on the setting, the buy in if you will.

QuoteImagine a World where you're a Maya character, your wizard shouldn't cast Fireball, even if mechanically it's the same spell. IMHO this helps with immersion on the setting, the buy in if you will.

TBH - wizards in European tradition also were unable to do such things. This is really like XX-century invention - mixing magic with comics superpowers.
So I'd say if you magic-up your Mayans - giving them fireballs won't be Europeisation, because they are definitely not European

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 01:27:18 PM

Quote from: Godsmonkey on October 28, 2021, 01:22:24 PM
I tend to use the Savage Worlds idea of "trappings". Let's use a fireball type effect for example:

A mage would cast a ball of flames, much like a typical fireball spell.

A weird scientist might have a device like a giant roman Candle gun that shoots balls that explode into an area effect.

An alchemist might have a phosphorus or similar grenade.

A Psychic might use the power of his mind to agitate molecules to cause an explosion.

In each case, mechanically, they work the same, but all appear very different in game play.

Yes, it is easier when you're dealing with different classes.

Now think of a Wizard in a pseudo medieval Europe setting, he casts spells in a certain way.

Change the setting/world and he should cast different spells (in trappings and maybe beyond) to keep the world internally consistent.

Imagine a World where you're a Maya character, your wizard shouldn't cast Fireball, even if mechanically it's the same spell. IMHO this helps with immersion on the setting, the buy in if you will.

Limiting spells to fit the feel of the game is every bit as important as adjusting the trappings. Possibly more so.

In the case of Mayan based culture. I would assume a blood sacrifice to cast spells for example.

Quote from: Wrath of God on October 28, 2021, 01:45:20 PM

QuoteImagine a World where you're a Maya character, your wizard shouldn't cast Fireball, even if mechanically it's the same spell. IMHO this helps with immersion on the setting, the buy in if you will.

TBH - wizards in European tradition also were unable to do such things. This is really like XX-century invention - mixing magic with comics superpowers.
So I'd say if you magic-up your Mayans - giving them fireballs won't be Europeisation, because they are definitely not European

Yeah, I'm not going for an authentic setting, I'll leave that to Pundit.

I'm going for a fantasy setting.