PDA

View Full Version : When Magic Clashes...



Everyman
2007-01-24, 01:55 AM
OP NOTE: I am writing this with only a few hours sleep and on the verge of a coffee crash. I apologize if anything sounds too far-fetched or vague. I should be more awake tomorrow. Besides, I'm just trying to stir up some discussion anyways.

There is already a ridiculous amount of threads devoted to the superiority of spellcasters to “mundane” individuals (like the fighter). As the game progresses and PCs achieve higher ranks of power, it becomes more and more necessary for one to have some sort of magic on hand. In fact, the more magic that one surrounds himself with, the better chance he has to survive attacks and counter with his own brand of magical justice. I can understand the view quite well, as late game D&D is designed to favor the magical over the mundane. Damage reduction and magical properties alone render a barbarian or fighter at a disadvantage unless outfitted with the proper magical gear or enhancements. However, a wizard, sorcerer, or cleric can manifest the same qualities that magical gear could grant and more. With preparation time, reality can be reshaped to one’s whim. For this reason, I would like to suggest that perhaps a fundamental quality of magic should be reevaluated: how magic interacts among itself.

Many of the fundamental advantages spellcasters have over non-spellcasters seem to revolve around the sheer depth of magical effects they can use to protect themselves. I am not saying that magic alone is why the wizard survives a battle. After all, a warrior is needed to protect one who can be so frail. What I am suggesting is that any spellcaster can weave a protective field of spells if given time. Even a surprised wizard might have a contingent teleport set to save himself should his life be endangered. Stoneskin, shield, mage armor, entropic field, protection from [insert word here]…all these spells can quickly render traditional attack forms useless, leaving only magic to battle magic. In contrast, magic suffers no such bane and can likely strike both spellcaster and non-spellcaster alike.

With this in mind, I would like to pose a question: what would happen if layers of magic could not be woven together? What if too many cooks spoils the broth (or in this case, spell)? I would like to suggest that perhaps mixing too many spell effects at a time might well limit how many spells a character can be affected by at one time. Perhaps there is even an element of danger for a spellcaster, as magic combines into a hazardous backlash. While it would not completely level the playing field, it might provide enough of an innate threat that spellcasters may need to weigh their options more carefully.

For example, suppose that a young sorcerer walks into a cave with mage armor protecting him. Suddenly, another mage steps out and fires a magic missile. Not wanting that to happen again, the sorcerer casts shield and prepares to fight back. Right now, the sorcerer has two spell effects on him. Both provide significant protection (and the shield spell may well be suppressing a viable attack for the aggressive mage), so the sorcerer currently has a bit of an upper hand. However, let’s back up the encounter to right before the sorcerer casts shield. His mage armor is protecting him, but not saving him from the hassle of the other mage’s spells. In his effort to save himself, he casts shield. However, something goes wrong and he is trapped in a bubble…or the missiles are drawn with greater velocity…or some other effect occurs.

If this sort of system were to be carefully constructed, a system that decided how and when such magical backlashes were to occur, do you believe it would help balance the game a bit more? I do not see this system being too much for low level casters to worry about, as they likely lack the number of spells per day or depth of spells to have more than one on-going effect at a time. However, it's impact could help the power creep that occurs mid-game and elevates afterwards.

Wehrkind
2007-01-24, 02:13 AM
That might be fun with a computer to simulate everything, but otherwise it would probably be a tremendous amount of paperwork and accounting. Plus it would give defensive spells a hand attack aspect.
"I cast Protection from Evil on the enemy mage [rolls] YES! He is drawn into the negative energy plane as his abjuration spells collapse in on themselves!"

Not a bad idea, just very awkward to adjucate.

illathid
2007-01-24, 03:59 AM
One could maybe tie it to the wild magic table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#wildMagic). Just have the caster make the level check for every magical effect on a person beyond the 1st. Maybe with a +2 to the DC for every effect currently active?

Neo
2007-01-24, 06:36 AM
You could try tie it into opposing spell schools. Kind of like the FR Weave Magic + Shadow Weave Magic = BOOM!

Abardam
2007-01-24, 07:29 AM
Complicated. You'd need to define what exactly each spell does, not just '+4 armor bonus to AC.'

For example, if Mage Armor interweaves force into your skin, making it tougher (hey, if it can be made into a potion...), and Shield draws the surrounding force into a compact shield-shape, then maybe Mage Armor pulls the Shield into the skin, thereby rendering the target immobile. Or maybe the Shield rips out the Mage Armor (and the skin), dealing lots of damage. Anyway, it's all subject to interpretation.

Besides, even harmless spells have saves.

And just what the heck is 'force', anyway?

Morty
2007-01-24, 08:27 AM
That's not bad idea, but it'd take a hell of bookeeping. However, chance of failure is something that D&D magic desperately needs.

Raum
2007-01-24, 09:19 AM
However, chance of failure is something that D&D magic desperately needs.
I like skill and fatigue based magic systems (better than preparation systems really) but D&D's magic system would need to be rewritten to accomodate spell failure chances smoothly. Otherwise just figure out what percentage of time you want spells to fail and remove that percentage of spell preparation slots.

Aust_Arrowsplitter
2007-01-24, 09:23 AM
Personally, I'm a fan of the spell Reciprocal Gyre from Complete Arcane when it comes to dealing with casters who 'buff' to the point of cheesiness. Dispelling all their precious spells, and dealing 1d6 magic damage/spell level dispelled in the process, is a lot of fun. It's like one, big, chained scroll mishap.

The White Knight
2007-01-24, 09:36 AM
1. Use the Vitality system, a la Star Wars d20
2. Give Wizards and Sorcerors much more skill points per level
3. Each arcane spell school is a skill that ranks must be invested in
4. Effectiveness of spells based on what range the skill check falls into (a la Star Wars d20 Force powers)
5. Spells require expenditure of some number of Vitality points (a la Star Wars d20)
6. A natural 1 causes some form of mishap, as described above - an exception to the "no automatic failure on a natural 1 with skill checks" rule
7. Take an obscene amount of time rewriting every spell in existence to follow these mechanics

This gives you a fatiguing effect of casting magic, a slight chance of mishap, a skill based approach, and a LOT of homework to do.

Divine would require a slightly varied approach to be fair, as there are fewer spells of each school available. I don't take this idea seriously enough to even put more thought into it though :P

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-24, 09:40 AM
That's...a really good idea. Nice.

Black Hand
2007-01-24, 10:13 AM
I don't know if any here read the potion miscability table... :smallconfused: You know, I probably spelled that wrong.

It was first published in 1st edition, and also in the second. It was a small table for when a person drank more than one potion of a different type, and the chemicals mix inside the person...the same could be used with magic too. Most of the time nothing really happened, or the combined effects diminished in effect or duration. There was a small chance that something horribly wrong could happen, or something really damn good. ((I think rolling 100% made one of the effects permenant, whilest a roll of 1% killed the character...those to can be treated as roll-agains, or whatever clever good/bad thing a DM can come up with))

Anyways that table could be applied in the use of layering magick spells with durations for the third edition, and it wasn't really that complicated. I noticed that they didn't print that table in any of the third edition, and from what I see, potions are drunk more than ale for the typical adventurer nowadays....

...:smallfurious: I say BRING back the fear of substance, er...Potion Abuse!!!

dead_but_dreaming
2007-01-24, 11:22 AM
1. Use the Vitality system, a la Star Wars d20
2. Give Wizards and Sorcerors much more skill points per level
3. Each arcane spell school is a skill that ranks must be invested in
4. Effectiveness of spells based on what range the skill check falls into (a la Star Wars d20 Force powers)
5. Spells require expenditure of some number of Vitality points (a la Star Wars d20)
6. A natural 1 causes some form of mishap, as described above - an exception to the "no automatic failure on a natural 1 with skill checks" rule
7. Take an obscene amount of time rewriting every spell in existence to follow these mechanics

This gives you a fatiguing effect of casting magic, a slight chance of mishap, a skill based approach, and a LOT of homework to do.

Divine would require a slightly varied approach to be fair, as there are fewer spells of each school available. I don't take this idea seriously enough to even put more thought into it though :P

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32617 :smallbiggrin:

Mewtarthio
2007-01-24, 11:41 AM
I don't know if any here read the potion miscability table... :smallconfused: You know, I probably spelled that wrong.

It was first published in 1st edition, and also in the second. It was a small table for when a person drank more than one potion of a different type, and the chemicals mix inside the person...the same could be used with magic too. Most of the time nothing really happened, or the combined effects diminished in effect or duration. There was a small chance that something horribly wrong could happen, or something really damn good. ((I think rolling 100% made one of the effects permenant, whilest a roll of 1% killed the character...those to can be treated as roll-agains, or whatever clever good/bad thing a DM can come up with))

Anyways that table could be applied in the use of layering magick spells with durations for the third edition, and it wasn't really that complicated. I noticed that they didn't print that table in any of the third edition, and from what I see, potions are drunk more than ale for the typical adventurer nowadays....

...:smallfurious: I say BRING back the fear of substance, er...Potion Abuse!!!

Alternatively, all potions must be drunk fresh. If you find a potion on an adventurer's body in a dungeon, odds are it's long since passed its "sell-by" date. While it may give you the usual effects, it may also have a few side effects, such as making you severely paranoid about undead, dealing ability damage, causing hallucinations, and turning you into a hot pink female kobold (well, maybe not that extreme).

Everyman
2007-01-24, 02:59 PM
I don't know if any here read the potion miscability table... :smallconfused: You know, I probably spelled that wrong.

It was first published in 1st edition, and also in the second. It was a small table for when a person drank more than one potion of a different type, and the chemicals mix inside the person...the same could be used with magic too. Most of the time nothing really happened, or the combined effects diminished in effect or duration. There was a small chance that something horribly wrong could happen, or something really damn good. ((I think rolling 100% made one of the effects permenant, whilest a roll of 1% killed the character...those to can be treated as roll-agains, or whatever clever good/bad thing a DM can come up with))

Anyways that table could be applied in the use of layering magick spells with durations for the third edition, and it wasn't really that complicated. I noticed that they didn't print that table in any of the third edition, and from what I see, potions are drunk more than ale for the typical adventurer nowadays....

...:smallfurious: I say BRING back the fear of substance, er...Potion Abuse!!!

AHA! That's a great idea. What's better is that they actually DID reprint that table. It's just on the D&D main site rather than any 3rd edition splatbook (as far as I can tell, at least). Lemme go find it...

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20060401b

If this were to be converted somehow, it might be a bit satisfactory. For example, perhaps the DM simply makes a d100 check (say, 15%). For every spell past the second, increase the odds by 5%. If a DM does roll for a magical problem, then roll again and consult the table. This still isn't a pretty system, but it might work.

On another note, how should magic items work in this equation? Frankly, I'm tempted to leave them alone (aka. magic item effects don't always trigger an effect).

EDIT: Gah! My copy function didn't work right. Correct address is now in.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-24, 03:06 PM
Leave magic items alone, but make multiple buffs dangerous.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-24, 04:03 PM
Perhaps there is even an element of danger for a spellcaster, as magic combines into a hazardous backlash. [...] In his effort to save himself, he casts shield. However, something goes wrong and he is trapped in a bubble…or the missiles are drawn with greater velocity…or some other effect occurs.

I completely love this sort of stuff. :smallbiggrin: I highly support any system of creative backlash for magic.

... unfortunately, it's hard to do that sort of thing without a very boring table, way too much homework, or leaving it to DM fiat (which means it would be awesome under a good DM and horribly unfair under a poor one).

You could have some general effects -- any sort of armour/shield-type spell has a chance to react with whatever else you cast, locking up and momentarily paralysing the caster, for example.

For it to be anything really satisfactory, I almost think it would have to be a variant system that left a lot up to the DM, i.e. -- "here are some general effects for a few spell types, but feel free to add more, and use DM discretion for which spells apply and which don't."

...Tarkhan, is that supposed to be a link to the aforementioned Potions Table? It's... linking me to your other thread.

Indon
2007-01-24, 04:16 PM
You know, even in the standard game, Abjuration spells interfere with each other when left next to each other for too long, and the magical 'vibes' become apparent to the naked eye.

So there's precedent, especially for spells like Mage Armor and Shield.

Edit: Personally, I'd make it so that spells that come into conflict just get into a fight. Have them roll checks for their casters' levels + the level of the spells and the higher result wins, the lower result dissipates (or backlashes for some d6's of damage in extreme cases).

I'd have Abjuration conflict with itself, Conjuration conflict with itself, Abjuration and Conjuration conflict with each other, and Illusion and Divination conflict when entertaining.