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. ;D
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 :P
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 :P
Yeah, I'm not going for an authentic setting, I'll leave that to Pundit.
I'm going for a fantasy setting.
Quote from: Godsmonkey on October 28, 2021, 02:03:34 PM
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.
Right, Maya magic needed blood almost always. Not going for an authentic setting, Mayas are the good guys so no human sacrifice (which they did throwing people in to the cenotes, much more civilized than those barbarians from the north (Aztecs I believe they call themselves?).
QuoteYeah, I'm not going for an authentic setting, I'll leave that to Pundit.
I'm going for a fantasy setting.
Yeah, so do not jump to fast into - oh this spell was in classic D&D it must be European - wagon. Just one heart of ginger teenager and your Mayic User should throw three fireballs/day per next 23 days.
QuoteLimiting spells to fit the feel of the game is every bit as important as adjusting the trappings. Possibly more so.
Limiting spells to consistent cosmology is even more important.
QuoteNot going for an authentic setting, Mayas are the good guys so no human sacrifice
Then just use Coyote and Crew :P
The thing is you can put flavor in the effect or in the process. I tried for a fairly effects based system for my own rules but with more detail on the process. One issue you run into is that the symbolism of various materials and acts varies widely between cultures. For example: is the color of death black or purple? Raw geometric effects like circles and squares might be replaced with naturalistic boundaries like a field or a village. If the wizard wants to effect an area, he has to walk about it widershins thirteen times and mark a rune on each cardinal point and so forth.
I think that avoiding singular effects might be the right way to go. The spell conjures a shower of sparks, 99 pixies, and a flamboyant dragon. The spell turns rock to mud and leaves holy scripture embossed on the surface.
In my experience the players generally would prefer to blow things up with a gesture but modify the color of the blast.
Quote from: David Johansen on October 28, 2021, 02:29:27 PM
The thing is you can put flavor in the effect or in the process. I tried for a fairly effects based system for my own rules but with more detail on the process. One issue you run into is that the symbolism of various materials and acts varies widely between cultures. For example: is the color of death black or purple?
White?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 12:19:39 PM
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?
Greetings!
Good Morning! Magic. And Magic Spells. Yes, my friend. D&D in particular does present some challenges and problems with that. Pat is zeroed in on part of the problem definitely being the "Generalist Mage"; Magic being everywhere nd prolific in D&D; all Mages having a bazillion spells in &D; and not just the Mages having lots of magic spells, but that they all have a common body of half a dozen optimized spells PER LEVEL that they all have, and that they all have.
All of that is perhaps a lot to chew on. However, it makes Mages overpowered; It makes Mages *generic*; It makes Mages boringly utilitarian and flavourless. It also makes Mages having a pre-determined, optimized template that they simply *must* adhere to, or they aren't Mages that are worth a fuck.
So, in many ways, if the DM is going to make "Magic" more flavourful and interesting, and make Mages actually feel unique, interesting, and flavourful--essentially the exact opposite of what the base rules of D&D do--if the DM wants to accomplish that, then you must in many ways do the opposite.
(1) Get Rid of the "Generalist" Mage. All Mages must and will specialize, in something. A particular school of magic, or a particular style of magic. Enchanter. Necromancer. Dawn Wizard. Loremaster. Whatever.
(2) Throw out ALL THE SPELLS. ALL OF THEM. Now, go back, and carefully look at each one of them, deciding which spells that Player Characters will have access to, and which spells they WON'T HAVE ACCESS TO. You, the DM, of course can access and use whatever you want. NPC's, villains, they all don't need to follow the same rules that Player Characters must adhere to and abide by. Review the spell lists, level by level, and create new spell lists composed of appropriate spells.
For example, I got rid of all Gate spells, plane-traveling spells, Teleportation spells, and Fly spells. No plane hopping, no characters jumping around like fucking Star Trek. No players just snapping their fingers and leaping into the air and flying for hours at a time like a fucking bird. NOPE. All that is fucking GONE.
No Speak with Dead, or Telepathy spells, either. Unless of course, you are a Necromancer, or a Demonologist. There's definitely benefits to kneeling to the Dark Side. ;D
That means that I can also run all the investigative adventures I want, while being unconcerned with some stupid Generalist Mage having easy access to a dozen magical information spells that totally wreck any kind of puzzle adventure or investigative adventure you might contemplate running, entirely pointless. Cut all that shit out! Player's don't NEED ACCESS to all power, all communication, all investigation or knowledge spells, or uber fast travel spells. NO. Just fucking NO, man.
Suddenly, a Player Character somehow getting their hands on a Enchanted Cloak of Giant Eagle Feathers or a Cloak of the Majestic Eagle, whatever, that allows them to fly once per day, or three times per day, for 5 minutes duration, or whatever, well, that magic item becomes rather d ;Damned special, now doesn't it? ;D
First and foremost, you have to trim the Magic spell lists down to what you want, and what is good for a campaign--not what gives Players absolute instant powers to do everything, know everything, and go anywhere, whenever they want, with a full sense of entitlement.
That is an essential, and foundational process.
That is also what I do in the World of Thandor.
It is also worthwhile to think about changing other aspects of flavour. Material ingredients. Dancing, or other rituals that must be performed. Particular costumes, or other ritual clothing, and special, ritual items.
I also like to change the casting times. Lots of spells require more tan one round to cast. They might require a 10 minute or hour long ritual. Whatever. That also yes, makes many spellcasters not always ideal or very useful in combat. Well, that's ok, you know?
People bitch about "Well, I want Magic to feel special and MYSTERIOUS! I want magic in the game to be like in mythology or the old Conan stories!"
Well, it is important to ask the right questions. What was magic like in the old Conan stories? What is magic like in old mythology? How do those elements differ from the D&D game's approach to magic? So, it therefore boils down to a process of cutting out all of the elements, the rules, and applications that don't make it like mythology or Conan stories; and changing or adding in the elements, rules, and applications that DO make magic more consistent with mythology and old Conan stories.
However, be prepared for the game and the game campaign to be a very different thing from the standard in the rule books. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 12:46:28 PM
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. ;D
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.
You could make a good argument that priests shouldn't have spells, at all. Use some other mechanic for miracles. Certain priests gain (permanent) boons like talking to animals or some kind of persuasion. Otherwise, they have a general "divine intervention" or "I'm just that damn holy" ability, similar to the slots per day turn undead attempts in some editions, except instead of just turning undead they have a limited but themed set of of abilities they can invoke by prayer or beseeching their god. In some ways, more like many conceptions of psionics instead of D&D magic (broad powers that can be invoked at will but eventually run out, instead of a large set of narrow powers that have to be prepped). If the request isn't in the general interests of the religion (define this broadly, not narrowly; the point is to exclude things that are really inappropriate not to second guess every action of the PC), or if the priest has been bad, there might be a chance of failure (maybe something like the miss chance for concealment in 3e).
GURPS Divine Favor has a patron system where there are no memorized spells. Prayers are submitted as petitions directly to the deity and a reaction roll determines how they take the request. Multiple petitions accumulate negatives on the reaction roll. Eventually you will irritate the god in question for the day. You can also gain specific Learned Prayers in this system, representing your character just having an open license for a specific effect.
I hope to use this in a game loosely based on Exalted's Creation where monks of the Immaculate Order don't pray to specific gods, but rather to Heaven as a general source of miracles. The reaction roll would be how busy the celestial bureaucracy is that day or how overworked the minor god that gets your request is. Heaven has a lot of shit to do, they don't have time for every little thing.
---
There are also interesting options in the Ars Magica Realms of Power supplements: Divine, Faerie, Infernal. These systems are all similar mechanically, but they have very different things they have control over and ways to get to it.
In order to work Miracles, somebody serving the Divine may Invoke God and the saints or angels directly, Meditate to gain insight and wisdom, or improve your Purity to rise above the material world and thus affect change in it.
Trying to pull power from the Faerie Realm involves trying to convince spirits and gods to lend you power through Evocation, convincing your target to accept the power through Enchanting them, or using your raw Empathy for the world of the Fae to channel the powers directly.
Infernal magic is called Maleficia and you either have to indulge in Debauchery as a ritual, or use Incantations in order to channel the powers of Hell.
There is also a supplement called Hedge Magic which has Elementalism, Folk Witches, Gruagachan (Pictish magic), Learned Magicians (charms and amulets, mainly), Nightwalkers (Benedante, astral projection types), and Viktir (Norse runic magi).
Hmmm. How would magic taste? Strawberries?
Quote from: Wrath of God on October 28, 2021, 02:12:09 PM
QuoteYeah, I'm not going for an authentic setting, I'll leave that to Pundit.
I'm going for a fantasy setting.
Yeah, so do not jump to fast into - oh this spell was in classic D&D it must be European - wagon. Just one heart of ginger teenager and your Mayic User should throw three fireballs/day per next 23 days.
QuoteLimiting spells to fit the feel of the game is every bit as important as adjusting the trappings. Possibly more so.
Limiting spells to consistent cosmology is even more important.
QuoteNot going for an authentic setting, Mayas are the good guys so no human sacrifice
Then just use Coyote and Crew :P
Not giving my money to racists.
Very different to postulate a world where you adventure well before the decay of the Mayan Empire, which happened before the arrival of the spaniards, than to postulate europeans don't exist.
Edited to add:
Where do I say spell X was in classic D&D therefore it's European?
It's what you find in the pseudo European setting of vanilla D&D, therefore it's something most people associate with said vanilla setting.
IF Magic is real it makes it a very important part of the setting's flavor.
You can change the Castles for Pyramids and still fail at achieving a different feel because you retained the exact same spells.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 03:01:34 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 28, 2021, 02:56:42 PM
Hmmm. How would magic taste? Strawberries?
Red, it tastes red.
I've heard earth magic tastes like Patchouli and bong water.
Quote from: SHARK on October 28, 2021, 02:32:41 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 12:19:39 PM
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?
Greetings!
Good Morning! Magic. And Magic Spells. Yes, my friend. D&D in particular does present some challenges and problems with that. Pat is zeroed in on part of the problem definitely being the "Generalist Mage"; Magic being everywhere nd prolific in D&D; all Mages having a bazillion spells in &D; and not just the Mages having lots of magic spells, but that they all have a common body of half a dozen optimized spells PER LEVEL that they all have, and that they all have.
All of that is perhaps a lot to chew on. However, it makes Mages overpowered; It makes Mages *generic*; It makes Mages boringly utilitarian and flavourless. It also makes Mages having a pre-determined, optimized template that they simply *must* adhere to, or they aren't Mages that are worth a fuck.
So, in many ways, if the DM is going to make "Magic" more flavourful and interesting, and make Mages actually feel unique, interesting, and flavourful--essentially the exact opposite of what the base rules of D&D do--if the DM wants to accomplish that, then you must in many ways do the opposite.
(1) Get Rid of the "Generalist" Mage. All Mages must and will specialize, in something. A particular school of magic, or a particular style of magic. Enchanter. Necromancer. Dawn Wizard. Loremaster. Whatever.
(2) Throw out ALL THE SPELLS. ALL OF THEM. Now, go back, and carefully look at each one of them, deciding which spells that Player Characters will have access to, and which spells they WON'T HAVE ACCESS TO. You, the DM, of course can access and use whatever you want. NPC's, villains, they all don't need to follow the same rules that Player Characters must adhere to and abide by. Review the spell lists, level by level, and create new spell lists composed of appropriate spells.
For example, I got rid of all Gate spells, plane-traveling spells, Teleportation spells, and Fly spells. No plane hopping, no characters jumping around like fucking Star Trek. No players just snapping their fingers and leaping into the air and flying for hours at a time like a fucking bird. NOPE. All that is fucking GONE.
No Speak with Dead, or Telepathy spells, either. Unless of course, you are a Necromancer, or a Demonologist. There's definitely benefits to kneeling to the Dark Side. ;D
That means that I can also run all the investigative adventures I want, while being unconcerned with some stupid Generalist Mage having easy access to a dozen magical information spells that totally wreck any kind of puzzle adventure or investigative adventure you might contemplate running, entirely pointless. Cut all that shit out! Player's don't NEED ACCESS to all power, all communication, all investigation or knowledge spells, or uber fast travel spells. NO. Just fucking NO, man.
Suddenly, a Player Character somehow getting their hands on a Enchanted Cloak of Giant Eagle Feathers or a Cloak of the Majestic Eagle, whatever, that allows them to fly once per day, or three times per day, for 5 minutes duration, or whatever, well, that magic item becomes rather d ;Damned special, now doesn't it? ;D
First and foremost, you have to trim the Magic spell lists down to what you want, and what is good for a campaign--not what gives Players absolute instant powers to do everything, know everything, and go anywhere, whenever they want, with a full sense of entitlement.
That is an essential, and foundational process.
That is also what I do in the World of Thandor.
It is also worthwhile to think about changing other aspects of flavour. Material ingredients. Dancing, or other rituals that must be performed. Particular costumes, or other ritual clothing, and special, ritual items.
I also like to change the casting times. Lots of spells require more tan one round to cast. They might require a 10 minute or hour long ritual. Whatever. That also yes, makes many spellcasters not always ideal or very useful in combat. Well, that's ok, you know?
People bitch about "Well, I want Magic to feel special and MYSTERIOUS! I want magic in the game to be like in mythology or the old Conan stories!"
Well, it is important to ask the right questions. What was magic like in the old Conan stories? What is magic like in old mythology? How do those elements differ from the D&D game's approach to magic? So, it therefore boils down to a process of cutting out all of the elements, the rules, and applications that don't make it like mythology or Conan stories; and changing or adding in the elements, rules, and applications that DO make magic more consistent with mythology and old Conan stories.
However, be prepared for the game and the game campaign to be a very different thing from the standard in the rule books. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Yeah, in my Maya game Wizards/Priests do have access to the same weapons as the Warrior, they just aren't as good at using them with the exeption of the sling since that was the most widely used way of hunting.
In Maya mythology the Wizard is a Priest, I'm including a Shaman type to give it some different spells powers, like transforming into a Jaguar once per day for a certain ammount of time.
Evil wizards would use an animal/human skin/pelt to transform into something else, the Shaman doesn't need this but he also doesn't have the ability to cast curses by pointing at you.
I hear you regarding investigative superpowers, I HATE the Lore ability of the Bards, but then again I hate the Bard as a whole.
Yep, cutting down the spells is a must, start from zero and see what works for your world.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 12:46:28 PMWhy 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.
For the purposes of the original game this is to impose a tactical choice in conflict assets: the whole point of choosing the spells you can cast at the beginning of the day is the possibility of picking ones that will turn out not to be useful for the challenges faced, thus requiring the player either to improvise in how he uses what he does have or requiring the entire party to find another approach.
This is also why an amazing amount of RPG-adapted magical "traditions" will include spells that can reproduce the effects of modern artillery and medicine, despite the historically-attributed powers of any culture's traditions having nothing like that: the "flavour" of a magic system is always going to take a back seat to what actually can and can't be done with it, in terms of accomplishing players' in-game goals (which are almost always to win fights and gain treasure, however those are defined).
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 28, 2021, 04:32:01 PM
This is also why an amazing amount of RPG-adapted magical "traditions" will include spells that can reproduce the effects of modern artillery and medicine, despite the historically-attributed powers of any culture's traditions having nothing like that: the "flavour" of a magic system is always going to take a back seat to what actually can and can't be done with it, in terms of accomplishing players' in-game goals (which are almost always to win fights and gain treasure, however those are defined).
That reminds me of another approach: Get rid of all the artillery magic.
There are certainly examples of powerful magic in myth and legend, like that used by Talesin or Atlantes. But it's not point and shoot explosions. Most magic should be more subtle, and really powerful or overt effects should take longer.
From a game standpoint, the basic problem with wizard is they're too good at everything. They have the greatest offensive power, often by an absurd magnitude (10d6 automatic damage in a 40' area beats 1d8 against a single opponent, even without considering the additional indignity of a to hit roll). But they're also the jacks-of-all trades, able to do almost anything conceivable if they have the right spell. This utility far surpasses the far more limited and grounded by realism limits of things like thief skills. The only downside of mages is degree of fragility (which can be compensated for with magic), and limited uses (spells known or spell slots). Both of which aren't really limits on the wizards, but limits on the party (the other party members serve as meat shields and the whole party retreats once the magic-user is running low on spells).
It's a terrible design, though it's so deeply ingrained that trying to change it is going to be like pulling teeth. But if you're up for it, an alternate approach is to turn wizards from combat masters into a different type of utility class. They're the wise men and wise women, able to do subtle things. They can perform cures and exorcisms, influence people, speak prophecy. They're skilled, and know and can deduce things, and point to solutions. If given time, they can perform greater works, like bridges of quasisubstance, or pits of miasma. But they can't do much once steel is drawn, and mostly act in a supporting role in combat, with minor tweaks and tricks. They have to be played smart with forethought, instead of blasting. This matches a lot of fiction, where wizards become a lot less effective when the swords come out.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 28, 2021, 04:32:01 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 12:46:28 PMWhy 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.
For the purposes of the original game this is to impose a tactical choice in conflict assets: the whole point of choosing the spells you can cast at the beginning of the day is the possibility of picking ones that will turn out not to be useful for the challenges faced, thus requiring the player either to improvise in how he uses what he does have or requiring the entire party to find another approach.
This is also why an amazing amount of RPG-adapted magical "traditions" will include spells that can reproduce the effects of modern artillery and medicine, despite the historically-attributed powers of any culture's traditions having nothing like that: the "flavour" of a magic system is always going to take a back seat to what actually can and can't be done with it, in terms of accomplishing players' in-game goals (which are almost always to win fights and gain treasure, however those are defined).
Not giving the MU/Cleric modern artillery/medicine but giving them other stuff also nerfs them, there are ways to restrict them from being Dr. Fate from day one while giving them Flavor.
At least IMHO.
I do agree that in OD&D it's done for tactical reasons, after all it just spawned from Wargames.
I'm attempting to achieve the balance I'm talking about, enough power to be useful, not so much you're a one man army while giving the magic a distinct flavor.
Quote from: Pat on October 28, 2021, 04:50:39 PM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 28, 2021, 04:32:01 PM
This is also why an amazing amount of RPG-adapted magical "traditions" will include spells that can reproduce the effects of modern artillery and medicine, despite the historically-attributed powers of any culture's traditions having nothing like that: the "flavour" of a magic system is always going to take a back seat to what actually can and can't be done with it, in terms of accomplishing players' in-game goals (which are almost always to win fights and gain treasure, however those are defined).
That reminds me of another approach: Get rid of all the artillery magic.
There are certainly examples of powerful magic in myth and legend, like that used by Talesin or Atlantes. But it's not point and shoot explosions. Most magic should be more subtle, and really powerful or overt effects should take longer.
From a game standpoint, the basic problem with wizard is they're too good at everything. They have the greatest offensive power, often by an absurd magnitude (10d6 automatic damage in a 40' area beats 1d8 against a single opponent, even without considering the additional indignity of a to hit roll). But they're also the jacks-of-all trades, able to do almost anything conceivable if they have the right spell. This utility far surpasses the far more limited and grounded by realism limits of things like thief skills. The only downside of mages is degree of fragility (which can be compensated for with magic), and limited uses (spells known or spell slots). Both of which aren't really limits on the wizards, but limits on the party (the other party members serve as meat shields and the whole party retreats once the magic-user is running low on spells).
It's a terrible design, though it's so deeply ingrained that trying to change it is going to be like pulling teeth. But if you're up for it, an alternate approach is to turn wizards from combat masters into a different type of utility class. They're the wise men and wise women, able to do subtle things. They can perform cures and exorcisms, influence people, speak prophecy. They're skilled, and know and can deduce things, and point to solutions. If given time, they can perform greater works, like bridges of quasisubstance, or pits of miasma. But they can't do much once steel is drawn, and mostly act in a supporting role in combat, with minor tweaks and tricks. They have to be played smart with forethought, instead of blasting. This matches a lot of fiction, where wizards become a lot less effective when the swords come out.
Or aim for a happy medium, where the Wizard has some magic offensive capabilities, isn't as fragile and can use some weapons (as it would if it existed and wasn't Dr Fate). Nerf it to a point, make greater effects harder/longer to cast but not so much that no one would want to play it.
In the AD&D2e campaign I'm playing our Elf used Phantasmal Force to project a huge Grim Reaper and some enemies died from sheer terror.
In the session before last he used the same spell (after using his one fireball) to make a fireball, and the enemy either ran shitting them,selves or died from the terror and certainty they would die from it.
It's basically an illusion, but you can do so much with it if you're creative enough and do think outside the box.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Pat on October 28, 2021, 04:50:39 PM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 28, 2021, 04:32:01 PM
This is also why an amazing amount of RPG-adapted magical "traditions" will include spells that can reproduce the effects of modern artillery and medicine, despite the historically-attributed powers of any culture's traditions having nothing like that: the "flavour" of a magic system is always going to take a back seat to what actually can and can't be done with it, in terms of accomplishing players' in-game goals (which are almost always to win fights and gain treasure, however those are defined).
That reminds me of another approach: Get rid of all the artillery magic.
There are certainly examples of powerful magic in myth and legend, like that used by Talesin or Atlantes. But it's not point and shoot explosions. Most magic should be more subtle, and really powerful or overt effects should take longer.
From a game standpoint, the basic problem with wizard is they're too good at everything. They have the greatest offensive power, often by an absurd magnitude (10d6 automatic damage in a 40' area beats 1d8 against a single opponent, even without considering the additional indignity of a to hit roll). But they're also the jacks-of-all trades, able to do almost anything conceivable if they have the right spell. This utility far surpasses the far more limited and grounded by realism limits of things like thief skills. The only downside of mages is degree of fragility (which can be compensated for with magic), and limited uses (spells known or spell slots). Both of which aren't really limits on the wizards, but limits on the party (the other party members serve as meat shields and the whole party retreats once the magic-user is running low on spells).
It's a terrible design, though it's so deeply ingrained that trying to change it is going to be like pulling teeth. But if you're up for it, an alternate approach is to turn wizards from combat masters into a different type of utility class. They're the wise men and wise women, able to do subtle things. They can perform cures and exorcisms, influence people, speak prophecy. They're skilled, and know and can deduce things, and point to solutions. If given time, they can perform greater works, like bridges of quasisubstance, or pits of miasma. But they can't do much once steel is drawn, and mostly act in a supporting role in combat, with minor tweaks and tricks. They have to be played smart with forethought, instead of blasting. This matches a lot of fiction, where wizards become a lot less effective when the swords come out.
Or aim for a happy medium, where the Wizard has some magic offensive capabilities, isn't as fragile and can use some weapons (as it would if it existed and wasn't Dr Fate). Nerf it to a point, make greater effects harder/longer to cast but not so much that no one would want to play it.
In the AD&D2e campaign I'm playing our Elf used Phantasmal Force to project a huge Grim Reaper and some enemies died from sheer terror.
In the session before last he used the same spell (after using his one fireball) to make a fireball, and the enemy either ran shitting them,selves or died from the terror and certainty they would die from it.
It's basically an illusion, but you can do so much with it if you're creative enough and do think outside the box.
So.... 4e?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 05:00:05 PM
It's basically an illusion, but you can do so much with it if you're creative enough and do think outside the box.
Agreed. The difficulty with systems that expect the player to be creative and "think outside the box" is that in this case the "box" of the game is the rules, and once license is granted for (effectively) players to make up one way to shortcut past some rules, it is very difficult to keep this under control and prevent the players shortcutting past them all.
I've quoted Brandon Sanderson's observation before that in any magic system, it's usually far more interesting, in terms of creating challenges, to be very specific about what magicians
can't do; this matches very neatly with the suggestions made above that DMs should be much more strict than usual about what spells are actually available to learn.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 28, 2021, 05:51:00 PM
I've quoted Brandon Sanderson's observation before that in any magic system, it's usually far more interesting, in terms of creating challenges, to be very specific about what magicians can't do; this matches very neatly with the suggestions made above that DMs should be much more strict than usual about what spells are actually available to learn.
One interesting exercise I've done is go through the spell list, and note the key new abilities that are gained at each new spell level. For instance, area damage effects appear at 3rd level, and long distance instant transportation at 5th level. Don't worry about the spells or the upgrades, just the new powers that emerge.
Then shift them around. Who says invisibility is a 2nd level spell? That's just a convention. What if it's a 4th or 5th level spell? What if area effect blast spells don't appear until 6th level? What if turning into a dog or a cow is 2nd level? This is rebalancing the fundamental assumptions of the game, and will lead to a very different feel and focus.
A stronger version is to go through the list and say no that's not possible. What if raise dead is impossible without direct divine intervention? What if there are no free teleports, you can only move instantly between pre-established gates? What if mind control and other compulsions don't work without consent, or for a softer ban, what if it's considered evil?
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 28, 2021, 05:51:00 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 05:00:05 PM
It's basically an illusion, but you can do so much with it if you're creative enough and do think outside the box.
Agreed. The difficulty with systems that expect the player to be creative and "think outside the box" is that in this case the "box" of the game is the rules, and once license is granted for (effectively) players to make up one way to shortcut past some rules, it is very difficult to keep this under control and prevent the players shortcutting past them all.
I've quoted Brandon Sanderson's observation before that in any magic system, it's usually far more interesting, in terms of creating challenges, to be very specific about what magicians can't do; this matches very neatly with the suggestions made above that DMs should be much more strict than usual about what spells are actually available to learn.
You won't find me arguing against the GM putting (or removing) restrictions on their table.
But before that, if you're making a game, YOU should put some yourself,in order for the GM to get a feel about what you're aiming at, after that whatever the GM rules overrides any and all design decisions made by the developers.
Quote from: Pat on October 28, 2021, 06:01:04 PMWho says invisibility is a 2nd level spell? That's just a convention. What if it's a 4th or 5th level spell? What if area effect blast spells don't appear until 6th level? What if turning into a dog or a cow is 2nd level? This is rebalancing the fundamental assumptions of the game, and will lead to a very different feel and focus.
That's a really good idea. I have to admit that I always thought the spell "Mind Blank" ought to be much lower level, or at least have a lower-level version that lets mind-readers and mind-shielders go more directly head-to-head at reasonable starting levels.
QuoteWhat if raise dead is impossible without direct divine intervention? What if there are no free teleports, you can only move instantly between pre-established gates? What if mind control and other compulsions don't work without consent, or for a softer ban, what if it's considered evil?
Katherine Kurtz's
Deryni novels showcase the effects of pre-determined teleportation locations (called Transfer Portals), as a good reference for that suggestion. For slightly less of a harsh limit, one could rule that mind-control effects are only evil if applied to beings of one's own kind, or to beings with the free will to change their own alignment.
Quote from: Pat on October 28, 2021, 06:01:04 PM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 28, 2021, 05:51:00 PM
I've quoted Brandon Sanderson's observation before that in any magic system, it's usually far more interesting, in terms of creating challenges, to be very specific about what magicians can't do; this matches very neatly with the suggestions made above that DMs should be much more strict than usual about what spells are actually available to learn.
One interesting exercise I've done is go through the spell list, and note the key new abilities that are gained at each new spell level. For instance, area damage effects appear at 3rd level, and long distance instant transportation at 5th level. Don't worry about the spells or the upgrades, just the new powers that emerge.
Then shift them around. Who says invisibility is a 2nd level spell? That's just a convention. What if it's a 4th or 5th level spell? What if area effect blast spells don't appear until 6th level? What if turning into a dog or a cow is 2nd level? This is rebalancing the fundamental assumptions of the game, and will lead to a very different feel and focus.
A stronger version is to go through the list and say no that's not possible. What if raise dead is impossible without direct divine intervention? What if there are no free teleports, you can only move instantly between pre-established gates? What if mind control and other compulsions don't work without consent, or for a softer ban, what if it's considered evil?
Who says improvements have to be tied to a level? What if you tie them to the inherent and increasing control of arcane energies by the Wizard? What if spells consume your energy? What if Improved/greater anything doesn't need to be learned but the caster has to have the power to do so?
So your caster knows how to control & create fire. At first he only can do Burning Hands because he lacks the control/power to do anything else. As he levels up he acrues more power/control and is able to create a fireball, then a flaming sphere, and the range/area of effect are also tied to the power of the caster, costing him more power to increase the range/area.
Rise dead or resurrection? Two different "spells" IMHO, the first doesn't (or shouldn't) bring anything back to life but creates a mockery of life, think Pet Cemmetary. The second is a miracle and requires divine intervention. The first should also be taboo for most cultures.
You might remember I'm also trying to make (for a different game) white/grey/black magic, mind control should be at least grey if used for good, and it might be considered always evil by some cultures. Although in that game the division isn't cultural but cosmological.
QuoteNot giving my money to racists.
I said: USE it. EXPLOIT. TAKE ADVANTAGE. COLONIZE.
QuoteVery different to postulate a world where you adventure well before the decay of the Mayan Empire, which happened before the arrival of the spaniards, than to postulate europeans don't exist.
While C&C will be woke mess for variety of reasons, that one argument from this site I really dislike. Like if you want retrofuturistic Injun spellpunk - you need to get rid of wypipo, at least in terms of transoceanic travel. Otherwise whole concept of independent Injun civilisation shall inevitable collapse, because they had no chance with Europeans (even if you'd give them better tech - smallpox would still kill them). Dropping Tunguska 5.0 and then just leaving whole issue Terra Incognita is probably one of least offensive concepts possible. If I was Apache or Tupi or Cree I'd not be so merciful, I'd make Eurasia main place of impact, and Eurasians turned into DEMON ZOMBIES and main antagonists :P (Like certain Polish fantasy writer did in transdimensional fantasy series of his called Last Commonwealth - war of good "elves" and evil "barlogs" reached Earth through 7th dimension - and while elves took over Poland, the Germans and Russians were fully assimilated by HELL ITSELF. It was fun. I have no regrets.)
QuoteWhere do I say spell X was in classic D&D therefore it's European?
It's what you find in the pseudo European setting of vanilla D&D, therefore it's something most people associate with said vanilla setting.
IF Magic is real it makes it a very important part of the setting's flavor.
I'd say most crucial thing is - social role of wizard, more than specific powers. In most kitchen sinkey of sinks - Faerun you have just plain boring wizard - alas it works quite different among hermetic like wizards of Sword Coasts, tyrannical magocracy in Thay, flying merchants of Halrua... still all achieved by on class. Same with fighter I guess.
QuoteYeah, in my Maya game Wizards/Priests do have access to the same weapons as the Warrior, they just aren't as good at using them with the exeption of the sling since that was the most widely used way of hunting.
In Maya mythology the Wizard is a Priest
Well if their powers are linked and dependent of divine, of some forms theurgy that makes limiting spells very easy - like on worldbuilding level.
Not really sure if this is what you're looking for or not, but in 2nd Edition's "Dragon Kings" supplement for Dark Sun, there was a table devoted to adding sensory effects to wizardly magic that I really really loved.
How it worked is that every Arcane Spellcaster would have some somatic effects attached to their spells, chosen by the player or the GM. There were auditory, visual, tactile, olfactory and gustatory elements, as well as "additional effects" (something that didn't really fit in the others, like a static cling or scaring small animals) and "Grand Effects" (something big like an earthquake or fusing all the sand around you into glass). Whether a spell would have effects or not was based on level, and they were split into 1-3, 4-6, 7-9 and 10th (called "Psionic Enchantment for the purposes of Dark Sun, since you needed to be a 20th Level psionicist in order to properly use 10th level magic).
There were plenty of surrounding rules, like saying that if you learned a spell from another wizard you copied their effects. You could also alter the appearance of a spell to an extent, like an emerald fireball or a blood red lightning bolt. The caveat being if the spell wasn't unrecognizable.
My suggestion using this system works as follows. Auditory effects would be something like the sound of tribal drums or the splashing of water. Visual effects might be the air rippling like water. Maybe "Lightning Bolt" takes the form of a serpentine god made of lightning. Grand Effects might include a visual of a tribal ceremony or the warmth of the sun felt on everyone. Maybe Blade Barrier is a wall of obsidian blades (I don't think it's a Wizard Spell but it could still work for this).
You could extend this concept on a cultural level to Mayan wizards.
I gave the players the Rules Cyclopedia spells and I'm always willing to adjust them if the group agrees the change works without being broken. If I'm running a point-buy spell system, players can design their own spells as long as they again aren't broken/overpowered.
With FATE, there was a lot of FLAVOR because the system is more narrative. D&D spells carry gestures, words and material components which is its own flavor. The issue is few D/GMs require Magic-users to describe HOW they are casting spells at a level that demands all the components. GMs allow casters to just "cast" like a video game. The failure isn't the rules it's the lazy D/GM.
If you force casters to describe HOW they cast spells it creates a level of verisimilitude within the game rules that actually means something.
QuoteIf you force casters to describe HOW they cast spells it creates a level of verisimilitude within the game rules that actually means something.
From my experience it works well just first or second time when given spell is casted. Afterwards its chore for players and unnecessary repetition.
Quote from: Wrath of God on October 29, 2021, 04:16:00 AM
QuoteIf you force casters to describe HOW they cast spells it creates a level of verisimilitude within the game rules that actually means something.
From my experience it works well just first or second time when given spell is casted. Afterwards its chore for players and unnecessary repetition.
I agree. It's rarely necessary to ask them how they attack with a weapon, and a spell is often just another type of weapon in D&D style fantasy games.
In my current game, there are five types of magic, each coming from a different real life and/or fictional setting. I feel this gives the systems a degree of depth and verisimilitude without having to go to all the trouble to create a background myself. The system strongly rewards specializing in one style, so while generalists exist, they are greatly outshone by specialists.
Shamans use spirit magic, which is based on Siberian shamanism, Miyazaki, Shinto, Tobo from the Black Company books, and a bit of Celtic mythology.
Elemental magic is based on The Last Airbender and D&D blasters, and is largely combat oriented.
Life magic comes from the Belgariad, The Black Company (yes, I'm a huge fan) and sundry other sources.
Psychics use sensory magic, based on modern paranormal beliefs, Katherine Kurtz's Adept books, and a bit of Jedi skills.
Negation magic is based on the White Rose, again from the Black Company.
While all of the styles use the same mechanics, I expect them to play very differently in practice.
I think to really work, such an effort has to be about effects and particular spells and flavor and mechanics. Because what gives the system its feel is all of those things working together. Which means of all the replies so far, I most agree with Shark, but others have touched on important elements too.
The bad news is that at the system design level you can't really get there on the cheap. It's not as easy as changing the flavor of the spell or restricting spell lists or shifting a few spells up or down in level. All that helps, but it isn't sufficient. (It might, of course, work just fine for a particular campaign.) The good news is that starting from scratch isn't that hard, because you can still use what's there as ideas. You just have to look at every single spell with a critical eye and no assumptions.
TL;DR version of the rest: In a new design, keep the base magic system very limited and incomplete in ways appropriate to that design and then write spells to fit that design, leaving room for useful system growth.
What I did for my game:
- Assumed that every spell will be rewritten. (Some show their roots clearly; some are new; most are tweaked.)
- Magic designed in the context of the system--needs to be both limited and mix and match with classes. Knew I didn't want it to be pure effects based, but wanted a thread of such design running through the spell options. (You might say that it is effects based only at the setting level, not the player level.) Magic is limited by type, not by character class, for the simple reason that a special list for every class is too much work. (Or put another way, if "paladin" gets a subset of "cleric" spells, that isn't enough to make it distinct. If it isn't distinct, it isn't in.)
- Made a list of the different kinds of magic that I thought the game could reasonably support. I had about 8 or 9 items on the list. Some of the traditional specialties were straight out, such as "elementalist", which sits on a line that the design doesn't support. These didn't even make the list. Of the ones on the list, I had only 3-5 that I was willing right now to work out mechanics for.
- I picked the mostly likely 3 and went with them as a starting place. Holy magic is channeled from the gods. It's hearkening back to the BEMCI/RC set, with very little direct damage effects. However, the direct damage effects are of the flashy miracle types--such as like the classic D&D "flamestrike". Spell weavers are about nature magic, spirits, with a dash of elemental lightning and fire. They also cover some basic necromancy through the spirit angle. Sorcerers are the classic arcanists, focused on wielding magic directly (not unlike later D&D "force" magic), charms, etc.
- The basic for each type is a very limited list of spells, which are cast using the standard limited mechanics. The spells are skewed to be slow in gathering power compared to traditional D&D-style systems, skewing the system towards non-casters. Most spells require at least 2 actions to cast in combat (more for more powerful spells) and don't have much direct combat utility until the caster has reached the low-middle power levels. That is, the base magic is so limited that by itself it isn't terribly tactical most of the time, though clever play can certainly take advantage even tactically, and there are certainly strategic uses. Think early D&D "hold portal". The really useful analogs, like "invisibility" is deliberately gated into the higher power levels. This limitation is a key element of the design.
- There are no crossover spells. Zero, nada, zilch. There are crossover effects. All three types, for example, have a basic spell to provide some light, but those are three different spells with different pros/cons. The low-level channeler can get the effects of a candle or makes an actual candle burn almost indefinitely, whereas the spell weaver produces a tiny flame that gives off light (and also works like a match to start a fire). This gets away from the sterility that pure effects-based systems can be prone too (if not monitored carefully by the GM), in that the spell can be used based on what one would naturally expect from its description, not limited to the mechanical effect.
- All of that is by way of preparation to then be able to layer on top of the basic system additional abilities by magic type and by class (and a few other things). For example, spell weavers imbue their personal equipment with a few spells of limited charges which they can then use to cast faster. This reinforces the flavor of their basic magic, which already tends in that direction. For example, spell weavers can't heal anyone directly. They can magically alter a drinkable liquid to turn it into a somewhat limited duration minor healing potion. This isn't as handy in a pinch as what a Holy caster do, nor as powerful, but it is an actual potion that anyone can use for the duration of the effect. Meanwhile, the shaman class can transfer a few spells to a spirit companion, and then use the spirit to circumvent range and other restrictions, which has different implications for holy shamans, spell weaving shamans, and sorcerer shamans.
- Finally, of the 3 magic types I started with, I deliberately still kept them narrow and left gaps. The design doesn't support everything, but I've left room for additional types. For now, there are simply some things that magic doesn't do.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 29, 2021, 07:07:44 AM
I think to really work, such an effort has to be about effects and particular spells and flavor and mechanics. Because what gives the system its feel is all of those things working together. Which means of all the replies so far, I most agree with Shark, but others have touched on important elements too.
The bad news is that at the system design level you can't really get there on the cheap. It's not as easy as changing the flavor of the spell or restricting spell lists or shifting a few spells up or down in level. All that helps, but it isn't sufficient. (It might, of course, work just fine for a particular campaign.) The good news is that starting from scratch isn't that hard, because you can still use what's there as ideas. You just have to look at every single spell with a critical eye and no assumptions.
TL;DR version of the rest: In a new design, keep the base magic system very limited and incomplete in ways appropriate to that design and then write spells to fit that design, leaving room for useful system growth.
What I did for my game:
- Assumed that every spell will be rewritten. (Some show their roots clearly; some are new; most are tweaked.)
- Magic designed in the context of the system--needs to be both limited and mix and match with classes. Knew I didn't want it to be pure effects based, but wanted a thread of such design running through the spell options. (You might say that it is effects based only at the setting level, not the player level.) Magic is limited by type, not by character class, for the simple reason that a special list for every class is too much work. (Or put another way, if "paladin" gets a subset of "cleric" spells, that isn't enough to make it distinct. If it isn't distinct, it isn't in.)
- Made a list of the different kinds of magic that I thought the game could reasonably support. I had about 8 or 9 items on the list. Some of the traditional specialties were straight out, such as "elementalist", which sits on a line that the design doesn't support. These didn't even make the list. Of the ones on the list, I had only 3-5 that I was willing right now to work out mechanics for.
- I picked the mostly likely 3 and went with them as a starting place. Holy magic is channeled from the gods. It's hearkening back to the BEMCI/RC set, with very little direct damage effects. However, the direct damage effects are of the flashy miracle types--such as like the classic D&D "flamestrike". Spell weavers are about nature magic, spirits, with a dash of elemental lightning and fire. They also cover some basic necromancy through the spirit angle. Sorcerers are the classic arcanists, focused on wielding magic directly (not unlike later D&D "force" magic), charms, etc.
- The basic for each type is a very limited list of spells, which are cast using the standard limited mechanics. The spells are skewed to be slow in gathering power compared to traditional D&D-style systems, skewing the system towards non-casters. Most spells require at least 2 actions to cast in combat (more for more powerful spells) and don't have much direct combat utility until the caster has reached the low-middle power levels. That is, the base magic is so limited that by itself it isn't terribly tactical most of the time, though clever play can certainly take advantage even tactically, and there are certainly strategic uses. Think early D&D "hold portal". The really useful analogs, like "invisibility" is deliberately gated into the higher power levels. This limitation is a key element of the design.
- There are no crossover spells. Zero, nada, zilch. There are crossover effects. All three types, for example, have a basic spell to provide some light, but those are three different spells with different pros/cons. The low-level channeler can get the effects of a candle or makes an actual candle burn almost indefinitely, whereas the spell weaver produces a tiny flame that gives off light (and also works like a match to start a fire). This gets away from the sterility that pure effects-based systems can be prone too (if not monitored carefully by the GM), in that the spell can be used based on what one would naturally expect from its description, not limited to the mechanical effect.
- All of that is by way of preparation to then be able to layer on top of the basic system additional abilities by magic type and by class (and a few other things). For example, spell weavers imbue their personal equipment with a few spells of limited charges which they can then use to cast faster. This reinforces the flavor of their basic magic, which already tends in that direction. For example, spell weavers can't heal anyone directly. They can magically alter a drinkable liquid to turn it into a somewhat limited duration minor healing potion. This isn't as handy in a pinch as what a Holy caster do, nor as powerful, but it is an actual potion that anyone can use for the duration of the effect. Meanwhile, the shaman class can transfer a few spells to a spirit companion, and then use the spirit to circumvent range and other restrictions, which has different implications for holy shamans, spell weaving shamans, and sorcerer shamans.
- Finally, of the 3 magic types I started with, I deliberately still kept them narrow and left gaps. The design doesn't support everything, but I've left room for additional types. For now, there are simply some things that magic doesn't do.
Agreed, there can be no ovewrlap of spells, it must be done from the ground up, if possible changing/modifying the mechanics.
Schools is a common theme (I saw your coment Mishihari), not sure it can be implemented on every game/setting, will need to think about it.
After all the Maya game isn't aiming for "Medieval Authentic {or the equivalent for the Maya centuries before the Spaniards came to the continent}", it's fantasy, using what little we know about my ancestors to flavor it and make it not vanilla fantasy. I might not even have them on Earth, after all we don't know why, how or exactly when their empire crumbled. Maybe they developed space travel and went to another planet to escape the savages from the north?
Maybe they were always aliens stranded here and managed to fix their ships and returned to their planet of origin?
It's too early to know exactly where I'll go. But, the magic needs to be done, because I plan on using the exact same system (not the spells mind you) on my other games.
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.
In Savage Worlds you can bend the Magic System in a number of ways.
You can make the spellcasting purely ritual - and it's a Skill Check associated with your Witchdoctor's "Ritual" Skill. And you simply have to enumerate the number of successes to pull off the Ritual.
You can make ritual have in-game material costs. There are a number of Savage Settings that do things like this. The idea is that the core task resolution is the same, but the mechanics can be tweaked in a huge number of ways.
One of the ways they do this is by the Setting Rules. In this case a Wizard might have the Edge "Arcane Background: Wizardry" and your Witchdoctor has the "Arcane Background: Ritual Magic" - and under those specific Edges it will delineate which powers are accessible to each Arcane Background. This is how they make differences between "techno-magic" (Weird Science) where how the PC uses their spells is both mechanical (in the sense their Powers are linked directly to devices) and trappings.
You can scale it up/down as much as you want. Savage Rifts has *crazy* levels of magic where starting characters are near Archmages - and they have robust systems of mega-ritual magic there. Or you can have magic that is low-key and subtle(ish) like Rippers or Deadlands. Low-magic games might only allow "wizards" to have a very limited list of powers to access. Same is true in games where different kinds of casters exist - like Witch Doctors and Wizards. This is a very normal thing in Savage Worlds.
The key here (in any game) is that you as the GM enforce the narrative conceits of the mechanics. Doesn't matter what system you use. But it helps to have a system that is designed for it. This is one of my issues with D&D Vancian magic. SW let's you do anything you want and you can narratively enforce whatever you need for immersion with much less effort.
This is true in the various editions of Talislanta as well - which range (depending on edition) from simply skill-based ritual effects (Tal2e/Savage Lands) to Vancian-like (3e with trappings), to full bore Effects Based (4e/5e). Interestingly they can ALL work in the same game simultaneously because though they mechanically approach the task resolution differently, the actual task resolution is the same.
TL/DR - make sure the Task Resolution is as universal as possible. The Mechanics/Trappings are whatever the system allows you to do to your tolerance level = best choice.
Quote from: tenbones on October 29, 2021, 03:02:17 PM
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.
In Savage Worlds you can bend the Magic System in a number of ways.
You can make the spellcasting purely ritual - and it's a Skill Check associated with your Witchdoctor's "Ritual" Skill. And you simply have to enumerate the number of successes to pull off the Ritual.
You can make ritual have in-game material costs. There are a number of Savage Settings that do things like this. The idea is that the core task resolution is the same, but the mechanics can be tweaked in a huge number of ways.
One of the ways they do this is by the Setting Rules. In this case a Wizard might have the Edge "Arcane Background: Wizardry" and your Witchdoctor has the "Arcane Background: Ritual Magic" - and under those specific Edges it will delineate which powers are accessible to each Arcane Background. This is how they make differences between "techno-magic" (Weird Science) where how the PC uses their spells is both mechanical (in the sense their Powers are linked directly to devices) and trappings.
You can scale it up/down as much as you want. Savage Rifts has *crazy* levels of magic where starting characters are near Archmages - and they have robust systems of mega-ritual magic there. Or you can have magic that is low-key and subtle(ish) like Rippers or Deadlands. Low-magic games might only allow "wizards" to have a very limited list of powers to access. Same is true in games where different kinds of casters exist - like Witch Doctors and Wizards. This is a very normal thing in Savage Worlds.
The key here (in any game) is that you as the GM enforce the narrative conceits of the mechanics. Doesn't matter what system you use. But it helps to have a system that is designed for it. This is one of my issues with D&D Vancian magic. SW let's you do anything you want and you can narratively enforce whatever you need for immersion with much less effort.
This is true in the various editions of Talislanta as well - which range (depending on edition) from simply skill-based ritual effects (Tal2e/Savage Lands) to Vancian-like (3e with trappings), to full bore Effects Based (4e/5e). Interestingly they can ALL work in the same game simultaneously because though they mechanically approach the task resolution differently, the actual task resolution is the same.
TL/DR - make sure the Task Resolution is as universal as possible. The Mechanics/Trappings are whatever the system allows you to do to your tolerance level = best choice.
Oh, I'm not doing vancian magic, I'm doing a magic points system, still need to decide if the wizard graduates knowing ALL the spells (whichever I decide they are) or just a basic subset and needs to learn/discover/create new ones.
One thing I'm almost sure off is schools/spheres. As in there will be schools of magic and the wizard graduates on only one school. Some might even be incompatible with others, because I want to do away with the generalist MU.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 29, 2021, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: tenbones on October 29, 2021, 03:02:17 PM
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.
In Savage Worlds you can bend the Magic System in a number of ways.
You can make the spellcasting purely ritual - and it's a Skill Check associated with your Witchdoctor's "Ritual" Skill. And you simply have to enumerate the number of successes to pull off the Ritual.
You can make ritual have in-game material costs. There are a number of Savage Settings that do things like this. The idea is that the core task resolution is the same, but the mechanics can be tweaked in a huge number of ways.
One of the ways they do this is by the Setting Rules. In this case a Wizard might have the Edge "Arcane Background: Wizardry" and your Witchdoctor has the "Arcane Background: Ritual Magic" - and under those specific Edges it will delineate which powers are accessible to each Arcane Background. This is how they make differences between "techno-magic" (Weird Science) where how the PC uses their spells is both mechanical (in the sense their Powers are linked directly to devices) and trappings.
You can scale it up/down as much as you want. Savage Rifts has *crazy* levels of magic where starting characters are near Archmages - and they have robust systems of mega-ritual magic there. Or you can have magic that is low-key and subtle(ish) like Rippers or Deadlands. Low-magic games might only allow "wizards" to have a very limited list of powers to access. Same is true in games where different kinds of casters exist - like Witch Doctors and Wizards. This is a very normal thing in Savage Worlds.
The key here (in any game) is that you as the GM enforce the narrative conceits of the mechanics. Doesn't matter what system you use. But it helps to have a system that is designed for it. This is one of my issues with D&D Vancian magic. SW let's you do anything you want and you can narratively enforce whatever you need for immersion with much less effort.
This is true in the various editions of Talislanta as well - which range (depending on edition) from simply skill-based ritual effects (Tal2e/Savage Lands) to Vancian-like (3e with trappings), to full bore Effects Based (4e/5e). Interestingly they can ALL work in the same game simultaneously because though they mechanically approach the task resolution differently, the actual task resolution is the same.
TL/DR - make sure the Task Resolution is as universal as possible. The Mechanics/Trappings are whatever the system allows you to do to your tolerance level = best choice.
Oh, I'm not doing vancian magic, I'm doing a magic points system, still need to decide if the wizard graduates knowing ALL the spells (whichever I decide they are) or just a basic subset and needs to learn/discover/create new ones.
One thing I'm almost sure off is schools/spheres. As in there will be schools of magic and the wizard graduates on only one school. Some might even be incompatible with others, because I want to do away with the generalist MU.
If doing magic points, it's also important to decide if you want to have big "fuel tanks" of spell points with a slow recharge (ends up working much like D&D's spellcasting pace) or small "fuel tanks" of spell points that refill faster (closer to the Savage Worlds feel). The former allows for big nova effects (which might risk unbalancing some scenarios, particularly when there are likely to be few encounters), but then they're stuck doing non-magic stuff for some time. The latter tends to keep a more consistent level of magical output. Both can work out, but give very different feels (and you might use different versions for different types of spellcasters...but note that it didn't really work out so well in 5e when done with the Warlock vs. other casters).
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 29, 2021, 03:20:46 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 29, 2021, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: tenbones on October 29, 2021, 03:02:17 PM
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.
In Savage Worlds you can bend the Magic System in a number of ways.
You can make the spellcasting purely ritual - and it's a Skill Check associated with your Witchdoctor's "Ritual" Skill. And you simply have to enumerate the number of successes to pull off the Ritual.
You can make ritual have in-game material costs. There are a number of Savage Settings that do things like this. The idea is that the core task resolution is the same, but the mechanics can be tweaked in a huge number of ways.
One of the ways they do this is by the Setting Rules. In this case a Wizard might have the Edge "Arcane Background: Wizardry" and your Witchdoctor has the "Arcane Background: Ritual Magic" - and under those specific Edges it will delineate which powers are accessible to each Arcane Background. This is how they make differences between "techno-magic" (Weird Science) where how the PC uses their spells is both mechanical (in the sense their Powers are linked directly to devices) and trappings.
You can scale it up/down as much as you want. Savage Rifts has *crazy* levels of magic where starting characters are near Archmages - and they have robust systems of mega-ritual magic there. Or you can have magic that is low-key and subtle(ish) like Rippers or Deadlands. Low-magic games might only allow "wizards" to have a very limited list of powers to access. Same is true in games where different kinds of casters exist - like Witch Doctors and Wizards. This is a very normal thing in Savage Worlds.
The key here (in any game) is that you as the GM enforce the narrative conceits of the mechanics. Doesn't matter what system you use. But it helps to have a system that is designed for it. This is one of my issues with D&D Vancian magic. SW let's you do anything you want and you can narratively enforce whatever you need for immersion with much less effort.
This is true in the various editions of Talislanta as well - which range (depending on edition) from simply skill-based ritual effects (Tal2e/Savage Lands) to Vancian-like (3e with trappings), to full bore Effects Based (4e/5e). Interestingly they can ALL work in the same game simultaneously because though they mechanically approach the task resolution differently, the actual task resolution is the same.
TL/DR - make sure the Task Resolution is as universal as possible. The Mechanics/Trappings are whatever the system allows you to do to your tolerance level = best choice.
Oh, I'm not doing vancian magic, I'm doing a magic points system, still need to decide if the wizard graduates knowing ALL the spells (whichever I decide they are) or just a basic subset and needs to learn/discover/create new ones.
One thing I'm almost sure off is schools/spheres. As in there will be schools of magic and the wizard graduates on only one school. Some might even be incompatible with others, because I want to do away with the generalist MU.
If doing magic points, it's also important to decide if you want to have big "fuel tanks" of spell points with a slow recharge (ends up working much like D&D's spellcasting pace) or small "fuel tanks" of spell points that refill faster (closer to the Savage Worlds feel). The former allows for big nova effects (which might risk unbalancing some scenarios, particularly when there are likely to be few encounters), but then they're stuck doing non-magic stuff for some time. The latter tends to keep a more consistent level of magical output. Both can work out, but give very different feels (and you might use different versions for different types of spellcasters...but note that it didn't really work out so well in 5e when done with the Warlock vs. other casters).
So far I'm going for the D&D pace, will need to investigate the SW way.
I agree with Happy here.
If you're going with spellpoints - you need to figure out the rate of accrual and their use. If you're going to have discrete "schools" - you may want to have discrete skills to adjudicate rolls.
This give you one last structure - difficulty of effects. If you're going effects based, then you need to have those parameters fine-tuned to a core task-resolution. So a "Bolt" effect does X as a baseline for Damage, Range for Y-Cost. Then you'll have to figure out what kind of modifiers you want to allow (Can you overclock it with more points? Can you boost range/damage/area of effect?)
Ritual magic might be more "Vancian" in terms of the overall discrete effect. I.e. a Ritual to summon a storm does only that. But the effect is modifiable based on the skill of the caster, the points expended. Narratively you might want larger effects to actually require more points than most casters can muster alone (Happy Fuel Tank idea is important here) - because then you load on optional mechanics to allow for lowering that cost:
- Ritual Assistants: perhaps the more others help in the ritual they can lend their own spellpoints? Mundanes might have a base tiny amount they can offer for just helping?
- Material components: These could be causes for adventures themselves (or at least side-quests) to acquire items that act as spellpoints for specific rituals.
- Sacrifice: you can make a list of spellpoint enhancers for personal sacrifice (or other people!).
- Special locations: Certain locations might enhance spellpoint expenditures of a certain kind. Graveyards for Necromantic rituals. etc. Glades for natural effects.
- Special Seasons: Same as above. Plug this into cultural reality in-game and you got yourself some built in drama and timelines to allow your ritualists to plan for (and your PC's to race against if they're going up against a ritualist).
You get the idea!
I don't mean to beat the SW Horse... I'm just using it as an example. I'm like you - I like having different ways of skinning the magical horse in my games. There is a lot of novelty in PC's learning new ways in-game to experience things like magic, rather than assuming there is only one way.
I *highly* recommend looking at Talislanta 4e (it's free - go to the www.talislanta.com) Basically there are ton of schools, but they all have different modes of casting effects, each school has its penalties and bonuses. Some modes are completely foreign to certain schools. So you have a huge mix of "traditional high-fantasy magic" as well as "low ritual magic" all in the same plane of play.
Quote from: tenbones on October 29, 2021, 04:30:44 PM
I agree with Happy here.
If you're going with spellpoints - you need to figure out the rate of accrual and their use. If you're going to have discrete "schools" - you may want to have discrete skills to adjudicate rolls.
This give you one last structure - difficulty of effects. If you're going effects based, then you need to have those parameters fine-tuned to a core task-resolution. So a "Bolt" effect does X as a baseline for Damage, Range for Y-Cost. Then you'll have to figure out what kind of modifiers you want to allow (Can you overclock it with more points? Can you boost range/damage/area of effect?)
Ritual magic might be more "Vancian" in terms of the overall discrete effect. I.e. a Ritual to summon a storm does only that. But the effect is modifiable based on the skill of the caster, the points expended. Narratively you might want larger effects to actually require more points than most casters can muster alone (Happy Fuel Tank idea is important here) - because then you load on optional mechanics to allow for lowering that cost:
- Ritual Assistants: perhaps the more others help in the ritual they can lend their own spellpoints? Mundanes might have a base tiny amount they can offer for just helping?
- Material components: These could be causes for adventures themselves (or at least side-quests) to acquire items that act as spellpoints for specific rituals.
- Sacrifice: you can make a list of spellpoint enhancers for personal sacrifice (or other people!).
- Special locations: Certain locations might enhance spellpoint expenditures of a certain kind. Graveyards for Necromantic rituals. etc. Glades for natural effects.
- Special Seasons: Same as above. Plug this into cultural reality in-game and you got yourself some built in drama and timelines to allow your ritualists to plan for (and your PC's to race against if they're going up against a ritualist).
You get the idea!
Quick summary of the magic system so far in the image below.
- Ritual assistants: I hadn't thought of allowing non casters to help out but it's an interesting idea.
- Material components: Yes, I had thought of this, part of the neccessary changes even if it was only a cosmetic change need to be the materials. Also provides drama.
- Sacrifice: In the Maya game the "wizard/Cleric" needs blood in all spells, mostly their own, not sure if be exact as to where to draw it to be more potent (The ball sack of the caster :o ) willing sacrifice is certainly an interesting idea that would keep the magic white. (The bad guys have no such constraint of course).
- Special locations: For my totally not "Monster Hunter" game I'm developing this already was in it. For the Maya game the temples and maybe certain other locations (The cenotes were believed a door to the other world) could be a good option)
- Special Seasons: YES! Certain spells MUST be done under the full moon and such. Others are just more potent or sure to work if performed in the right place/time.
Quote from: tenbones on October 29, 2021, 04:40:33 PM
I don't mean to beat the SW Horse... I'm just using it as an example. I'm like you - I like having different ways of skinning the magical horse in my games. There is a lot of novelty in PC's learning new ways in-game to experience things like magic, rather than assuming there is only one way.
I *highly* recommend looking at Talislanta 4e (it's free - go to the www.talislanta.com) Basically there are ton of schools, but they all have different modes of casting effects, each school has its penalties and bonuses. Some modes are completely foreign to certain schools. So you have a huge mix of "traditional high-fantasy magic" as well as "low ritual magic" all in the same plane of play.
Dude beat the horse all you want, I'm not shy about
stealing ideas getting inspiration from anywhere/anyone.
Will give a good look at Talislantla, thanks.
Well if you want something more directly convertible:
There is the ritual system from 4e, and that was adapted into rituals in PF which are more flavorfull.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 29, 2021, 05:19:36 PM
Well if you want something more directly convertible:
There is the ritual system from 4e, and that was adapted into rituals in PF which are more flavorfull.
Will need to do some research, I don't own either. But I bet I can find some nice resume somewhere.
IIRC, in one version of WFRP, material components were "optional" in that they didn't help you to cast the spell, but they could be consumed by the arcane backlash of a miscast...instead of miscast energy harming the caster. I liked that tradeoff.
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 29, 2021, 05:28:42 PM
IIRC, in one version of WFRP, material components were "optional" in that they didn't help you to cast the spell, but they could be consumed by the arcane backlash of a miscast...instead of miscast energy harming the caster. I liked that tradeoff.
And/or the ingredients reduce the chance of a miscast...
I'm thinking of a focus, a wand, staff, ring, that the caster can create to help it focus the magic energy. Would need to be something hard to create IMHO.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 29, 2021, 05:07:47 PM
- Ritual assistants: I hadn't thought of allowing non casters to help out but it's an interesting idea.
Someone needs to hold down the
victims sacrifices while you're busy shouting blood and souls for my Lord
Arioch I mean Tezcatlipoca I mean Ek Chuah.
More seriously, regarding spell points, don't just think of the size of the pool, but the flow of points. Most spell point systems are effectively nova systems, where you have a pool that you can blow out very quickly, and then you have to rest a long time before it replenishes. This tends to encourage the 10 minute adventuring day, where the wizards blast everything in sight, and then the party retreats until they can do it again.
But it's possible to build a more dynamic system, where points ebb and flow over the course of a fight or a scene. The old MSH Karma system could be used a model, where you can gain (or lose) points during the course of an scene based on your actions (defeat enemies, act heroically, save bystanders, sacrifice an eye, kill someone, etc.), and then have to strategically decide whether to use the points now or save them for the climax. Fighting vidya games often have power meters that do up as you make regular attacks, and when you hit a certain threshold you qualify for special moves. Adapted to a magic system, you'd have a cast a certain number of weaker spells before more powerful ones are unlocked. That could be emulated by a tally point system, where you start with 0 points, and each spell you cast adds its cost to the pool. You'd start limited to weak (say 1 point) spells, but as the size of the pool increase, more powerful effects would be available (say at 5 points, you can start casting 2 point spells). These pools would quickly dissipate if not continually added to, and certain powerful effects might reset the meter. Another option is something like the Marvel Saga system, where actions are based on card play, and more heroic/plot protected characters have larger hands. If we replace cards with dice, then spellcaster roll a number of dice at the start of the fight, and then use the results to pay for spell effects. Say 3d6 results in a 1, 5, and 3. In that case, no 6 point effects would be allowed, and 4 point effect would require using the die with a 5 on it. More powerful casters could have more or larger dice. And when a die is used it might be gone for the fight, it might be replaced with a new random roll, or a lot of other variations. The old Swashbuckler game concept of branching options based on what you did last round could be another example, if you're familiar with it.
I'm not suggesting any of these ideas in particular, they're just examples. but I do recommend thinking about the flow.
Quote from: Pat on October 29, 2021, 06:06:37 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 29, 2021, 05:07:47 PM
- Ritual assistants: I hadn't thought of allowing non casters to help out but it's an interesting idea.
Someone needs to hold down the victims sacrifices while you're busy shouting blood and souls for my Lord Arioch I mean Tezcatlipoca I mean Ek Chuah.
More seriously, regarding spell points, don't just think of the size of the pool, but the flow of points. Most spell point systems are effectively nova systems, where you have a pool that you can blow out very quickly, and then you have to rest a long time before it replenishes. This tends to encourage the 10 minute adventuring day, where the wizards blast everything in sight, and then the party retreats until they can do it again.
But it's possible to build a more dynamic system, where points ebb and flow over the course of a fight or a scene. The old MSH Karma system could be used a model, where you can gain (or lose) points during the course of an scene based on your actions (defeat enemies, act heroically, save bystanders, sacrifice an eye, kill someone, etc.), and then have to strategically decide whether to use the points now or save them for the climax. Fighting vidya games often have power meters that do up as you make regular attacks, and when you hit a certain threshold you qualify for special moves. Adapted to a magic system, you'd have a cast a certain number of weaker spells before more powerful ones are unlocked. That could be emulated by a tally point system, where you start with 0 points, and each spell you cast adds its cost to the pool. You'd start limited to weak (say 1 point) spells, but as the size of the pool increase, more powerful effects would be available (say at 5 points, you can start casting 2 point spells). These pools would quickly dissipate if not continually added to, and certain powerful effects might reset the meter. Another option is something like the Marvel Saga system, where actions are based on card play, and more heroic/plot protected characters have larger hands. If we replace cards with dice, then spellcaster roll a number of dice at the start of the fight, and then use the results to pay for spell effects. Say 3d6 results in a 1, 5, and 3. In that case, no 6 point effects would be allowed, and 4 point effect would require using the die with a 5 on it. More powerful casters could have more or larger dice. And when a die is used it might be gone for the fight, it might be replaced with a new random roll, or a lot of other variations. The old Swashbuckler game concept of branching options based on what you did last round could be another example, if you're familiar with it.
I'm not suggesting any of these ideas in particular, they're just examples. but I do recommend thinking about the flow.
Oh, I thought the idea was more like the DB Genkidama ;D
MSH? What's that?
The flow idea sounds perfect for my "totally not a Cleric" for my other game. He accrues divine favor by his actions which he can then spend in miracles...
But I don't want to leave it with zero favor at the start of an encounter... Maybe a mix of base points and the flow idea would work best.
MSH = Marvel Super Heroes, the original one from the 1980s. The karma system rewards heroes who do things like save bystanders, or go on dates (because having a personal life gives the referee an opportunity to throw in complications). It penalizes them for doing things destroying property or killing people. The points can be used adjust rolls or perform stunts. The game works best when the referee is fairly generous handing out points, and when the players use them at dramatically appropriate moments, instead of hoarding them. (One of the design mistakes was the advancement system was based on socking away karma, which encouraged hoarding.)
And I wasn't really suggesting a coherent "flow" system. I was pointing out that there's a flow to how points come and go, and how they're used. And they can be designed to dynamically and ebb and flow over the course of a fight or an encounter, instead of being a simple meter that gets depleted until you're out. The four examples I gave are completely different and not particularly compatible ways to do that. Other examples of different flows that could be adapted to a magic system are 4e's bloodied rules or GURPS' UMana.
Quote from: Pat on October 29, 2021, 06:06:37 PM
More seriously, regarding spell points, don't just think of the size of the pool, but the flow of points. Most spell point systems are effectively nova systems, where you have a pool that you can blow out very quickly, and then you have to rest a long time before it replenishes. This tends to encourage the 10 minute adventuring day, where the wizards blast everything in sight, and then the party retreats until they can do it again.
I favor spell point systems with a very long recovery time, as in a month or more. If you nova and retreat til you recover, the adventure is over because everything will be different by the time you get back, and it will be a whole new adventure. I like having resources that must be managed over the course of the entire adventure, and it fits several fictional settings that I enjoy.
Quote from: Mishihari on October 29, 2021, 08:10:52 PM
Quote from: Pat on October 29, 2021, 06:06:37 PM
More seriously, regarding spell points, don't just think of the size of the pool, but the flow of points. Most spell point systems are effectively nova systems, where you have a pool that you can blow out very quickly, and then you have to rest a long time before it replenishes. This tends to encourage the 10 minute adventuring day, where the wizards blast everything in sight, and then the party retreats until they can do it again.
I favor spell point systems with a very long recovery time, as in a month or more. If you nova and retreat til you recover, the adventure is over because everything will be different by the time you get back, and it will be a whole new adventure. I like having resources that must be managed over the course of the entire adventure, and it fits several fictional settings that I enjoy.
Spell slots recharge within a day, I've only "retreated" so far to a previous secured place where we can fend off attacks. Only once did we fail to recharge because we couldn't rest. We still pressed on fighting by other means.
My current group is made up of sneaky bastards that fight smart.
Oil, Whiskey, Greek Fire if you have it, spears of the fallen as a protective barrier, seal holes with whatever you can drag to do so. As long as you're not facing casters on the other side you're good.
Also henchmen, lots and lots of henchmen when needed (of course this assumes you at least suspected you might need them).
Aim for the leader, use whatever tools you have at your disposal, hell shout in joy that reinforcements are comming! Charge them like Han Solo in Star Wars.
And if needed run, there's nothing wrong in running and living to fight another day. The adventure has changed, so what? The enemy is expecting you (if they are inteligent), so what? If there's more than one type of enemy creatures make them fight each other if you can. Use the tools of the BBG against him.
I don't care for pure mana point systems as I find them a bad mix for casual players. I like a little bit of a "governor" on the system to protect the player, but only a bit.
I went with "charges" tied to each level of spells the caster can do (up to 8 in my system). Sure, that's 8 "mana pools" to track instead of 1, but you don't need to do funky math to to get the relative balance of a pure mana point system right, and it also keeps the numbers down. I almost went with 3 pools, with spells in three tiers (minor, major, master?), with some of the nicer spells in each tier taking more points, but decided the bog simple version of each level being different was worth it to avoid such tracking. After all, most characters never unlock the upper reaches anyway.
A month recharge is a little long for me, but I did go with a mix of 1 week for full easy recharge when at rest, and then less, decision-based recharge while adventuring. It's only 1 to 3 charges per day (depending on conditions of the camp), and no more than 1 in any given spell level. I like for characters to get steadily worn down in the field, but want a little bit of an out for casual players that realize they are in over their heads.
drive by posting just now but...
i like the magic is marvel powers, spells are power stunts approach. ymmv.
My notion is that using magic causes turbulence in the aether, called "miasma" using proper rituals when drawing energy from the aether and to cleanse it after spell casting make it safer. In game terms casting spells accumulates an increasingly large penalty to casting further spells as the penalty grows, so does the area effected. Miasma clings to the caster and flows after them but can be shed and out distanced but leaving uncleansed miasma tends to cause negative magical effects like mutations and possession.
In the d20 Conan game, a spall caster had to find and learn each spell, including the first one. There was a small pool of spell points they could use to power their spells, but if you wanted to do any "real" magic, you had to find an outside source of magic points. Usually sacrificing something. Usually people. It gave magic a sinister aspect, even the good spellcasters had to pay a heavy price, though it usually did not mean human sacrifice.
Sadly I never got to play this game so ai can't tell you how smooth everything went.
As for spells, each one was it's own unique thing that a caster had to research, track down, buy, or otherwise acquire from some obscure source. Usually each spell was tied to a particar entitiy like Set, or Ibis, or Mitra, or some other god or demon. So they all had a certain flavor to them.
I am looking forward to seeing how the Mayan game turns out. It sounds like a nice change of pace from dungeon delving. Plust I have a personal interest in the Mayans and their history.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on October 30, 2021, 11:12:44 PM
In the d20 Conan game, a spall caster had to find and learn each spell, including the first one. There was a small pool of spell points they could use to power their spells, but if you wanted to do any "real" magic, you had to find an outside source of magic points. Usually sacrificing something. Usually people. It gave magic a sinister aspect, even the good spellcasters had to pay a heavy price, though it usually did not mean human sacrifice.
Sadly I never got to play this game so ai can't tell you how smooth everything went.
As for spells, each one was it's own unique thing that a caster had to research, track down, buy, or otherwise acquire from some obscure source. Usually each spell was tied to a particar entitiy like Set, or Ibis, or Mitra, or some other god or demon. So they all had a certain flavor to them.
I am looking forward to seeing how the Mayan game turns out. It sounds like a nice change of pace from dungeon delving. Plust I have a personal interest in the Mayans and their history.
Well it's not going to be very historical, one because we know very little about them and second because more fantastic is more fun IMHO.
But I'm trying to get as many true cultural artifacts in there as I can.
For instance the Warrior is also an artist of some sort, poet, painter...
There's actual schools for the warrior caste. And the Cleric caste.
The non human PC races (2 so far) are based of true Mayan myth with my own twist to turn what was 2 brothers(In the mythology) into a whole race and a death race (precursors of the humans) into a not death race coexisting with the other two.
May not be exactly what you're after, but if you can find a copy of Torg's "Aysle" sourcebook and the supplement "Pixaud's Practical Grimoire," it details a magic construction system to build pretty much any sort of spell.