Greetings!

I think a huge change that addresses many of the problems if getting rid of all the protections and aving throw that Player characters get. Enchanters need to be deadly. Charm Person should be a brutally effective spell!

Hell, in my campaigns, if a sexy Witch seduces you, and enchants a character with some kind of Charm spell, the character is fucked. They need some kind of special ritual to break free--otherwise, they stay a devoted play thing for the Witch! Same with my evil Snake Priestesses. Snake Priestesses need to be badasses. They all shouldn't be required to be machine-gun nests of fireball.

I also let Snake Priestesses cast mobile clouds of stun jelly that interrupts and fucks with enemy spellcasters. Extended snake arms that can coil and bring enemy Thieves right to their grasp from 30, 60, 120 feet away. BOOM! Now the Thief is being chewed on by a swarm of biting snakes!

In my campaign, Druids can summon a giant Cow Hoof that stomps on enemies.

Lots of different tweaks that can make different kinds of spellcasters interesting, useful, and deadly, whether they are enemies, NPC allies, or Player Characters.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Are you making new spells, or just adding cosmetic trappings to existing spells? For example, Thorn Whip can be reskinned as being your snake arms without otherwise changing the spell.

Modifying or flat out replacing the Vancian magic system of D&D is a popular feature of a lot of players, writers of supplement books, or in the core rules of many OSR games. 

I know Vancian magic is one of my least favorite elements that stops me from playing D&D.  That, and THAC0.   Yes, I was a teen at that time, and I'm 46 now.  Having classmates try to explain how to play 2nd Ed just made me love my Palladium Fantasy that much more. 

But making magic more powerful and effective isn't something I hear a lot of people ask for in D&D.  Making it more random, or more like a skill system, have critical failure tables, and powered by mana points are more common. 

Quote from: HappyDaze on August 06, 2022, 04:28:00 PM
Are you making new spells, or just adding cosmetic trappings to existing spells? For example, Thorn Whip can be reskinned as being your snake arms without otherwise changing the spell.

Greetings!

I see. Well, honestly, I enjoy doing both. When spells can easily be "Re-Skinned" that is an excellent solution. I'm not necessarily the world's best designer of magic spells--I often just throw something together, because in my "mind" it looks or sounds cool, and I want a certain effect from it. The actual mechanics behind it be damned! *Laughing* Having said that, I often just leap in and do it, and create all kinds of bizarre and strange spells. So, I like to do both, certainly.

I also have a strong passion for making--and keeping--"The Game"--as mine. I like the players being surprised, and kept on their toes. Forget always looking to the "Rule Books". I'm the DM, and the prime source. The world, itself, is also a resource, of course, for truth and knowledge. Even then, especially in regards to magic, I like to keep things, certainties, laws, formulas, etc, somewhat vague and uncertain. Even for master Wizards or great Witches, for example, using magic can always be something that is risky, uncertain, and unpredictable.

I think when many players or DM's complain about everything magical being "Known"; "Predictable"; "Controllable"; and "Certain"--it is largely because the DM either doesn't know--or perhaps has forgotten--that it is the DM that must take an active hand in creating dynamics that keep magic unpredictable and mysterious in the campaign. Players are not going to just assume that magic is mysterious because the DM wants to pout and declare that it is! Damnit! It is MYSTERIOUS! *laughing* You know? So, I always try and keep that principle in mind, and to never neglect the principle or become otherwise lazy.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

First; consider a different game system than 5e. I have one in need of a final round of playtesting or consider Savage Worlds for a different take on the fantasy genre (less attritional, more seat of your pants) since their new Fantasy Companion is about to release.

If you must stick to 5e, then look at the Bard, Sorcerer and particularly Warlock for inspiration rather than the Cleric, Druid and Wizard. The way to make magic-users more distinct is to NOT let them use every power in the book (which turns them into a generic soup) but have to pick very specific and limited tools that they then have to employ creativity with in order to solve problems.

Even better is something like the specialized spells from the warlock patrons or cleric domains. Tighten up the focus and you'll have more distinct magic-users. Consider if Wizards could ONLY use the schools of their specialty school.

Agree with Chris.  Other techniques that you can use within the Vancian format:

- Change the levels of spells.  Killer charm was fine when "magic users" had so few spells.  With more spells in place and easier to get, an AD&D style charm probably bumps up to 2nd or even 3rd level.
- Don't forget that spells cast at higher levels can not just change in power but in scope.  Nothing wrong with keeping level 1 charm as is, but making it nastier when cast with a higher slot.

Now, for my system, I decided it was cleaner, even starting from BEMCI/RC, to rewrite every blasted spell from scratch. There was several reasons for that, but the relevant one for this discussion is that in the interest of making the different casters distinct, I had no (nada, zip, absolute none) overlap between major types.  Think of "divine, natural, and arcane" for clerics, druids, and wizards as never crossing.  However, there are some effects that should cross, even if the spells don't.  Consider a simple light spell, for example.  Rather than let the spells cross, I did a different light spell, different name, different flavor, somewhat different mechanics for each type that needed it.  With that, you can get some very flavorful effects--such as cleric light being something that undead don't like, where as wizard light doesn't have that property but is more flexible in how it works.

I'm fairly certain that the crossing of spells in early D&D was more about keeping things basic, saving development time, but mostly saving space in the printed books.  To avoid a complete rewrite, you could simply keep the spells as is for one type, then do a variant under another name for the cross effect.

In a similar vein, consider tossing all reversible spells, and instead making them separate things--that don't necessarily work in parallel.  The main reason is that in conjunction with the no cross-type spells, this really frees up the design space.  "Cause light wounds" is kind of a dog spell.  Because it has to be the reserve of cure light wounds, and thus the same level.  Detached from those restriction, you can do a version worthy of the name.

Rather than wrestle with the system I'd just choose a D&D edition that already has more powerful MUs.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on August 08, 2022, 12:09:25 PM
Rather than wrestle with the system I'd just choose a D&D edition that already has more powerful MUs.

Which one are you referring to? Is it more powerful for PCs too, or only for rule-breaking NPCs? The latter seemed muchore common in earlier editions.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on August 06, 2022, 09:41:40 PM
Modifying or flat out replacing the Vancian magic system of D&D is a popular feature of a lot of players, writers of supplement books, or in the core rules of many OSR games. 

I know Vancian magic is one of my least favorite elements that stops me from playing D&D.  That, and THAC0.   Yes, I was a teen at that time, and I'm 46 now.  Having classmates try to explain how to play 2nd Ed just made me love my Palladium Fantasy that much more. 

But making magic more powerful and effective isn't something I hear a lot of people ask for in D&D.  Making it more random, or more like a skill system, have critical failure tables, and powered by mana points are more common.

THACO system is very simple math

THACO of 15

if attacking a creature with a 5 ac, you subtract 5 (10 or higher hits)
if attacking a creature with a -2 ac you add 2.  (17 or higher hits)

To this day I'm not sure why people get bent out of shape about THACO? 

No one had to explain it to me when I was 13 and none of my friends had any issues with it either and this is coming from someone who was educated in a small town (pop 329) in Arkansas

I think it's down right frightening that so many people found subtraction so hard.

Quote from: David Johansen on August 08, 2022, 02:13:09 PM
I think it's down right frightening that so many people found subtraction so hard.

I ran for a group of 12+ players, with all of us in our teens.  It wasn't hard for any of us.  It wasn't even a speed bump, even for the ones that were terrible at math.  Yet, given a D&D game without it, we were happy to drop it.  All I can guess is that it is an aesthetic thing--by definition something that can't be fully explained in any kind of rational way.

Quote from: David Johansen on August 08, 2022, 02:13:09 PM
I think it's down right frightening that so many people found subtraction so hard.

It's not that subtraction is hard; it's just harder than it needs to be to achieve the result desired; both attack matrix (Basic, 1e) and roll + mod vs. TN (3e and later) are faster for most people than subtraction... particularly subtraction of negative numbers on the high end (yes, that makes it into addition, but your brain still has to go through the added step of seeing a minus sign and processing that it means add instead of subtract).

It is entirely possible to be both fast and easy while still having something else that's faster and easier.

ETA: I think if I wanted to keep the subtraction system I'd just recalibrate it with AC 0 as the best possible AC instead of -10. So your starting THAC0 would be 30 and unarmored based AC is 20... 30-20 = 10+. I think subtracting negative numbers is probably the single biggest factor in why people dislike THAC0 (though I never saw problems when using attack matrices since the math was predone and it was compare value to table).

QuoteI think a huge change that addresses many of the problems if getting rid of all the protections and aving throw that Player characters get. Enchanters need to be deadly. Charm Person should be a brutally effective spell!

Magic in DnD generally was too effective and too reliable to be interesting for years. And now you are proposing to make characters even more vulnerable to it. Terrrible idea.
Or I could agree with that if there's roll to Cast, with deadly or insane accidents when you botch it for both PCs and Villains.

And Here I thought Shark's Raining Moos would be your favourite spell.

As others have pointed I don't think making the MU even more powerful is anything I've ever seen demanded.

Changing the systems all together yes. Like in DCC, or like my own Cleric who doesn't have to prepare anything ever, he prays and God answers, and the answer can be no since there's a roll involved. This makes him different from a wizard, more like what people actually believe about how miracles happen and IMHO a better PC Class since you HAVE TO roleplay it.

QuoteChanging the systems all together yes. Like in DCC, or like my own Cleric who doesn't have to prepare anything ever, he prays and God answers, and the answer can be no since there's a roll involved. This makes him different from a wizard, more like what people actually believe about how miracles happen and IMHO a better PC Class since you HAVE TO roleplay it.

Dunno. Basic character powers, that will return and return during adventures are usually the ones that get cut from descriptive RP the first, because there's only as many times you wanna spend time on that.