PDA

View Full Version : How do you like to learn spells?



FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-19, 11:32 PM
I'm working on a homebrew magic system, and I've run into a roadblock with how characters gain access to new spells.

From D&D, I know of three systems - you pay for them at level-up (Sorcerers, Psions, Bards), you find them in the world or pay in-world resources to get them (Wizard, archivist), or you just get them (Beguiler, Cleric, Druid.)

All issues of power balance aside, which do you like best? I lean towards the first one myself - it's low-paperwork, but your decisions are important and you aren't usually required to keep track of every spell in the game.

I do have one issue with fun vs. useful, though - it seems like there will usually be some niche utility spells or such that seem really fun to use, but the overall expected benefit you get from them is so low that no one would spend resources on them - the only way to actually give them a use is to give players access to everything, or to somehow "Bundle" spells together.

Anyone know of a better or more elegant solution?

Zanos
2014-01-19, 11:36 PM
I like being able to find them in the world like wizards, because then a DM can add scrolls or spellbooks to loot, which is usually more interesting than a cloak or ring.

Kamai
2014-01-20, 03:07 AM
As a player, it depends on the sort of character I'm running. Getting the power through intense study should feel like the Wizard, hunting down spells, learning the instructions to each world-warping trick, these tricks are very difficult to do anything outside the parameters.

Self-taught or playing with the arcane forces of magic should feel something like Pathfinder's Words of Power or Psionics. The character inherently knows how to get into certain flows of magic, and the skill is in mixing the flows of magic right to get something like he needs.

Now if the magic is handed in some sort of pact (Cleric or Warlock style), I would expect to see a strongly themed list. Maybe he can move some of the power to do general things (going to either of the above lists), but the power is the patron's first, and it does mainly what the patron allows it to, though the character has been given some discretion on how best to use these powers.

Lorsa
2014-01-20, 04:07 AM
I learn my spells at Hogwarts. Sure woulds be nice if I could learn them some other way though, it's a pain to get there...

Oh you mean how I like my characters to learn spells! Right! Well, I can enjoy many different magic systems. If I had to choose between the various D&D ways to deal with spells though, I much prefer the Sorcerer way. But maybe that's just because I like the class...

Thrudd
2014-01-20, 04:18 AM
I'm working on a homebrew magic system, and I've run into a roadblock with how characters gain access to new spells.

From D&D, I know of three systems - you pay for them at level-up (Sorcerers, Psions, Bards), you find them in the world or pay in-world resources to get them (Wizard, archivist), or you just get them (Beguiler, Cleric, Druid.)

All issues of power balance aside, which do you like best? I lean towards the first one myself - it's low-paperwork, but your decisions are important and you aren't usually required to keep track of every spell in the game.

I do have one issue with fun vs. useful, though - it seems like there will usually be some niche utility spells or such that seem really fun to use, but the overall expected benefit you get from them is so low that no one would spend resources on them - the only way to actually give them a use is to give players access to everything, or to somehow "Bundle" spells together.

Anyone know of a better or more elegant solution?

I enjoy wizards receiving their spells mostly randomly through adventuring. This is the only way to get use out of some of those utility spells you're talking about, and it is fun to see the creative uses people can put them to. A couple spells can be chosen/researched at each level, but the rest should be found at random as loot. No "spell stores" or libraries with every spell in the universe that you can research at will in between every adventure.

Rondodu
2014-01-20, 08:57 AM
Inside which kind of setting and (gaming) system do you intend to plug your magic system?

I’ve encountered, all in no-level, point-buy systems:
Spells are bought with experience points (instead of buying attributes or skills).*In the game I encountered it, spells were granted by an overseeing power, the ([i]in-game[i]) XP representing how much said overseeing power considered and trusted you. You needed to prove yourself before being handed a BFG 9000. Or a squirt gun.
Spells are bought with points specific to this effect (you can only learn new spells with them). These points were earned through: reading of temporary or permanent manifestations of the structure of the universe (in artificial or natural patterns, lights, …); mediation (which actually was putting yourself in a situation where you are likely to see previously mentioned manifestations, observing a flame for hours, e.g.)

I’ve enjoyed both, mainly because they matched the setting and the system.

Segev
2014-01-20, 10:42 AM
One of the more fun systems for learning spells that I've played is in an old PC game called "Celtic Tales: Balor of the Evil Eye." It was a strange combination of turn-based strategy and civilization-building and hero-training, in the game. Magic worked by having a 3x4 set of "runes" and two elements to choose from. Bards had fire and air, while druids had earth and water. They had identical rune sets.

Pick one rune from each of the 3 rows, and one element. Some combinations created spells. Others did nothing or had weird backlash effects. You could discover spells by experimentation (costing your turn and possibly, if in battle, breaking the rune used), or by learning it from some enemy champion you capture or bargain with.

The spells, if you had learned them in prior games, didn't change, so you didn't have to re-learn them. This would be a tricky system to work into an RPG meant for replayability where PC casters weren't just flat out better if their players know more of what they were doing. But it was still a neat system.

FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-20, 12:04 PM
Inside which kind of setting and (gaming) system do you intend to plug your magic system?

I'm trying to build my own magic system to work with RuneQuest 6 - so, classless, level-less system based on skiills, with a d100 roll-under system for skill checks.

The setting is... unusual. It's set across multiple planets with spaceships, etc, but almost no technology - everything is powered by magic, they don't even have closed hulls on their ships. Different planets have weaker or stronger (or more or less cooperative) magical fields; there's no natural field in space, so ships have to project their own field from stored magical energy (crystals).

Flavour-wise, magic has a more science-y feel than in D&D - mages are more like scientists or hackers, using their minds to interface with the magical field, and using the field to produce effects. Some effects require materials with special properties in order to manifest, others require so much power you need to supplement them with crystals.

In terms of magic's place in the culture... the game I want to run is set when planets are first starting to interact with one another - one planet discovered space flight and used it to build a (very evil) empire, getting all of the various materials/knowledge from different worlds in order to make themselves more powerful. There's also a newly-formed resistance - escaped slaves managed to steal a few ships, and have been using them to smuggle ship-building supplies and the knowledge to use them back and forth - from which a nascent revolution is brewing.

So, I'm thinking about something where there are a bunch of local magical traditions, each with relatively limited scope but a lot of practice/development put into them, and then a handful of newer schools formed from the mixing of knowledge and resource - those would have more options, but maybe be less refined? I'm also toying with the idea of having a system the empire uses (since they've had the chance to mix magical knowledge for a few decades longer than anyone else), which the players would have to accomplish something (get an enemy mage to teach them, steal some supply of of books/materials, whatever) in order to get access to themselves.

Airk
2014-01-20, 01:49 PM
I'm trying to build my own magic system to work with RuneQuest 6 - so, classless, level-less system based on skiills, with a d100 roll-under system for skill checks.

Well, this seems to automatically invalidate any sort of 'get spells automatically' mechanism unless it's tied directly to skill.

Segev - the problem with that kind of magic system, IMHO, is a versimilitude one. Why hasn't someone discovered and written down every possible spell yet? Even if you increased the size of the grid tenfold, that's still not even the work of one human lifetime to figure out. Barring some sort of "Lo! And magic didst return to the world!" event in the recent past, having something like that is basically the same as having everyone know all the spells. (or the same as everyone asking "Why don't I know all the spells?")

FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-20, 01:58 PM
Well, this seems to automatically invalidate any sort of 'get spells automatically' mechanism unless it's tied directly to skill.

Well, the idea would be that if you're trained in a certain type of magic, you basically know what's out there, it's a matter of what you choose to practice and learn - the equivlanet of, say, fighters learning feats.

Kaww
2014-01-20, 03:15 PM
I like how Mage the Awakening handles this in systems that don't have levels. There are ten different disciplines of magic, I think. You buy access to a certain tier of a certain discipline with xp (very expensive though). Then you can use all spell associated with that specific discipline, up to the maximum tier you have. You can also mix and match various disciplines at various tiers to make hybrid spells. This requires good GMing though and I wouldn't suggest it to new players.

FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-20, 05:12 PM
I like how Mage the Awakening handles this in systems that don't have levels. There are ten different disciplines of magic, I think. You buy access to a certain tier of a certain discipline with xp (very expensive though). Then you can use all spell associated with that specific discipline, up to the maximum tier you have. You can also mix and match various disciplines at various tiers to make hybrid spells. This requires good GMing though and I wouldn't suggest it to new players.

I think I'm leaning towards something like this - have a lot of different schools/disciplines/traditions, from the various mage cultures and traditions, each will have something like five tiers of spells, with a lot of overlap (so, cmmon spells might appear on most lists.) When you get enough skill in a discipline to access a new tier, you get access to all of those spells.

I may also include something like normal (much larger) spell lists, and a few styles that give you the option to learn spells from a given list list, if you gain access to the spell (in a scroll-equivlanet thing) and pay an XP cost for it.

By the way... does anyone like prepared casters? I almost always avoid them, even if it means taking a power hit to play spontaneous.

Rondodu
2014-01-20, 05:27 PM
Flavour-wise, magic has a more science-y feel than in D&D - mages are more like scientists or hackers, using their minds to interface with the magical field, and using the field to produce effects. Some effects require materials with special properties in order to manifest, others require so much power you need to supplement them with crystals.
Then I would go with several different skills of magic (e.g. from basic, well understood stuff, such as —*let’s say, telekinetics —*to “hey, it works, we’re not sure why, but we tested it a lot and it works —*say, healers, because no physicians —*through stuff in the middle — turn water into wine, we understand the process). You can learn various colors of magic at school (say, everyone a bit interested can do cantrips), learn new spell in books; but you still have to understand and be able to reproduce it. Lifting a swamped spacecraft? Everyone knows how to do the stuff, but balancing the beast not breaking it apart and reacting to the forces you can’t see? That a -7 difficulty (or whatever) right there. Healing an internal bleeding? You’ve got to know what you’re doing. You don’t learn that in an instant; there is a lot of practice involved.

So I would go: spend experience (and RP) to improve skills; learning a new spell takes time depending on how good you are in the related skill.

Urpriest
2014-01-20, 05:41 PM
I tend to think the bundle-style is best: characters shouldn't have to spend combat resources on utility unless utility is a big part of the game, so if you're making a combat-focused game like D&D then either giving a separate track for utility spells (a la 4e) or making bundles of thematic abilities, some combat and some utility (like 3.5's Binder) can work, and bundles have the advantage of letting you enforce themes while still giving magical freebies.

FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-20, 05:43 PM
Then I would go with several different skills of magic (e.g. from basic, well understood stuff, such as —*let’s say, telekinetics —*to “hey, it works, we’re not sure why, but we tested it a lot and it works —*say, healers, because no physicians —*through stuff in the middle — turn water into wine, we understand the process). You can learn various colors of magic at school (say, everyone a bit interested can do cantrips), learn new spell in books; but you still have to understand and be able to reproduce it. Lifting a swamped spacecraft? Everyone knows how to do the stuff, but balancing the beast not breaking it apart and reacting to the forces you can’t see? That a -7 difficulty (or whatever) right there. Healing an internal bleeding? You’ve got to know what you’re doing. You don’t learn that in an instant; there is a lot of practice involved.

So I would go: spend experience (and RP) to improve skills; learning a new spell takes time depending on how good you are in the related skill.

Maybe... a while ago I did come up with a (short) list of types of spells - a few for simple combat, and a few more for advanced stuff. (I think the full list was thermodynamics, electrics, spatiokinesis and entropics for the straight-up attack stuff, then... um, other stuff for the advanced ones.)

Rondodu
2014-01-20, 07:33 PM
The more I think of it, the less I am convinced you need spells per se. You could very well fit everything in various skills. Casting a spell is just providing the right skill and a difficulty.

Something like:
Lighting a cigarette? Roll thermokinesis +3
Setting a stick on fire ? thermokinesis 0
Set a log on fire? thermokinesis -3
Fire up a mid-sized sphere (possibly with people in it) for a (very) short time? thermokinesis -7 — extremely tiring/resource consuming
Heat a mid-sized sphere by 10K and maintaining it for a while? Pyrokinesis -10

And I would add difficulty for specific task you’ve never trained to perform before —*with background/other skills as justification.

So, for combat:
Lifting a light object up: telekinesis +3
Deflecting a light object: telekinesis +3 (but you might be limited by your awareness)
Launching a light object towards someone: Telekinesis 0 (but you might be limited by you aiming skills, with malus if the object and target are not aligned — which is not a problem for characters trained to fight by these means)
Throwing a virtual punch (no object involved): telekinesis -quite a lot

Say, if you keep warming up you soup with you’re mind everyday, you’d get better at warming up stuff (the size of a ball, liquid and by a few tens of K — not brains). Now how to translate this into gameplay? I’d say let the GM eyeball it, but, hey! that’s just me.

FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-21, 10:29 AM
The more I think of it, the less I am convinced you need spells per se. You could very well fit everything in various skills. Casting a spell is just providing the right skill and a difficulty.

Something like:
Lighting a cigarette? Roll thermokinesis +3
Setting a stick on fire ? thermokinesis 0
Set a log on fire? thermokinesis -3
Fire up a mid-sized sphere (possibly with people in it) for a (very) short time? thermokinesis -7 — extremely tiring/resource consuming
Heat a mid-sized sphere by 10K and maintaining it for a while? Pyrokinesis -10

And I would add difficulty for specific task you’ve never trained to perform before —*with background/other skills as justification.

So, for combat:
Lifting a light object up: telekinesis +3
Deflecting a light object: telekinesis +3 (but you might be limited by your awareness)
Launching a light object towards someone: Telekinesis 0 (but you might be limited by you aiming skills, with malus if the object and target are not aligned — which is not a problem for characters trained to fight by these means)
Throwing a virtual punch (no object involved): telekinesis -quite a lot

Say, if you keep warming up you soup with you’re mind everyday, you’d get better at warming up stuff (the size of a ball, liquid and by a few tens of K — not brains). Now how to translate this into gameplay? I’d say let the GM eyeball it, but, hey! that’s just me.

So.. I might be able to see something like that working for utility magic, but in combat, I imagine it going one of two ways.

First, I could come up with a huge math-y set of rules to govern the interactions. These would either be too restrictive to be any fun, or so varied that one broken combo could ruin the game, or both. (it's really, really hard to come up with a simple rule set that covers a given space of options but but beyond.)

Second, I could play everything by ear, but that would be inconsistent, probably lead to me setting a dangerous precedent (sure, you can selectively heat the guards bladder, causing him to feel the need to pee and giving you the opportunity to sneak past. Wait, you want to selectively heat the BBEG's brain?)

It feels like it would devolve into the equivalent of "no dice, I'll just tell you if your attacks work.".Defined spells give the option for tactical combat over a clearly defined ruleset, which is where combat gets fun for me.

I might do something like this for w out-of-combat utility magic, though.

GungHo
2014-01-21, 10:29 AM
I guess I can answer this two ways.

I don't like Vancian magic. However, since I play D&D alot, I have to kind of "deal with it". When I deal with it, I prefer the discovery method of the Wizard. Finding old spell books in ruins and libraries or taking them as prizes from enemy wizards is appealing and a way to reward hard work.

Personally, though, if I'm going with non-Vancian magic... I prefer it as a mix of what Rondodu is describing and what is best relatable as the Mage system from WoD. You have a list of magical skills and what you can really do when you do magic are keyed off of those skills. There are rotes that exist that are common expressions of power, but what you can really do with magic is determined by a combination of your experience, your investment in the various magic skills, and your intelligence.

The problem with "my way", though, is the same problem we always had with Mage... you get into a lot of arguments about what certain values of a skill really mean. As much as I don't like Vancian magic, a list of discrete spells really does get you past these arguments, and it's why classes like the sorceror appeal to people. You get the pool-based powers with a list of effects that keep people honest.