Working on a new system: What does a magic user need?

[XionUnborn01]

Hey playgrounders, I'm working on designing my own game and I'm looking for some input.

What do you guys think is a mandatory thing for a mage to be able to do? A few things that I'm already planning on including are:

Direct Damage (with various effects, shapes, types, etc.)
Movement spells (teleportation, extra speed, etc.)
General +x to y spells.

What do you guys find necessary for a mage to be able to do with his spells, and further, what minor non-spell abilities to you like seeing?

[Karl Aegis]

Mages are always expected to be able to perform unlicensed surgery.

[Blake Hannon]

Explain why this is not a fantasy heartbreaker, and I in turn will talk about what I think a magic user needs.

[Vitruviansquid]

A wizard needs to be able to cast spells that are cool and unique, and that I would never have been able to imagine myself before reading their descriptions in your game book.

That on top of the droll, old-fashioned Fireballs, of course.

[noob]

You forget all Control spells(for any well made evil plot),
Summoning spells,
Construction spells(fabricate build major house, changing the battlefield by adding walls and traps)
And there is tons of other bunches of spells you forget.

[Thrawn4]

What a magic user needs most of all is fluff, otherwise the class is just an accumulation of tricks.
To elaborate: In many games, magic is just some guy with a mana bar that chooses certain spells. Now, I agree that this can be fun, but the underlying system should have some rammifications. Insteand of "using mana" there should be some inpact on the world or the mage (Dragon Age magic is a wonderful example, but there are many more). That said, I tire of magic users capaple of doing everything and rather have specialists. Consider a druid or a necromancer – less versatile, but so much better background/fluff. You can still have generalists I guess, but choosing a powerful spell or an area of expertise should have a huge impact imho. Otherwise magic becomes just another tool, which is fine but overdone imho.

[noob]

Even if specialized magi always automatically won battles against generalist magi, generalist would stay a lot more useful because they do everything and that is extremely important each time you are not fighting.

[Yora]

A magic user needs to be able to use magic. Maybe not nonstop, but during the course of an adventure, a magic user should never turn into a magic not-user because his magic runs out.

[Mastikator]

Do stuff that is otherwise impossible,
like walking on walls,
or breathing underwater,
standing inside fire without being burnt,
standing in a blizzard without freezing,
changing the weather,
getting a glimpse of the future,
read people's minds,
speak with animals,
speak with the dead,
see far away places,
see the past,
summon celestial and demonic beings,
change your shape,
change the shape of someone else,
change the shape of an object,
create illusions,
travel through higher dimensions,
brew magical potions,
enchant items with magical powers,
construct golems/homunculus

[Milodiah]

Communicate at extreme distances.

Also, no polymorphing mentions yet? Gotta be able to turn people into newts and stuff, it's a classic!

I have, in all honesty, burned an eighth-level spell slot just to be able to watch the rogue fail three lockpicking checks, saunter up to the door, say some mumbo-jumbo, turn it into a squid, and step over the squid.

[Frozen_Feet]

Wrong question. Magic is an empty word which can mean pretty damn near anything you want it to mean in context of your game and setting. There is no "need", there's only what you want.

[Milodiah]

Wrong question. Magic is an empty word which can mean pretty damn near anything you want it to mean in context of your game and setting. There is no "need", there's only what you want.

If we're going by this logic, what you may want to consider is how magic should be applied in game terms. The industry standard is a cookie-cutter "boxed" spell, which was built with an intended purpose in mind and requires far more lateral thought than should be necessary to make it do something else. There are spells for attacks, buffs, debuffs, etc, but those roles were decided by the developers and the players rather have to follow them.

When I was working on a system, I decided I'd rather provide my spells without those obvious gameplay denotations, and simply state objectively what they do. For example, one spell is capable of removing a sphere of matter ranging from grape to bowling ball size from reality, shifting it to a different dimension, and then optionally bringing it back to the same place. That's what it does. It can be used as a weapon, after all, scooping a dude's chest cavity out of existence could make a pretty potent attack, but I'm not going to pigeonhole it into a category. It could also be used for surgery, sabotage/demolitions, excavation, evidence disposal, safekeeping of an object, creating traps, etc. etc. With enough lateral thinking it could be used for even more ridiculous stuff; just off the top of my head, one could essentially superposition every letter of the alphabet in the same space, dropping only the right one in to create whatever words and sentences you want. Now you have a tool useful for anything from advertising to encryption.


Just my thoughts on the matter.

[MrStabby]

I back a lot of what is said here - magic users shouldn't be able to do everything but should have some specialisms.

Damage - yes but maybe not all of them (or at least not using magic for damage or magic being less efficient or possibly a special type of damage).

Blessings, curses, healing, setting things on fire, alteration, illusions...

I particularly like ideas where the source of their power may determine their abilities.

[Maglubiyet]

To make blood sacrifices, burnt offerings, and bargains with other-worldly incorporeal spirits.
To maintain the thin fabric of reality.
To keep mind-shattering secrets.
To guide the dead over to the Other Side lest their souls become food for the ravens.
To preside over fertility rites for the community.
To remove curses.
To cast out shadow dreams that linger into daytime, possessing the dreamers and driving them mad.

[Anonymouswizard]

Insteand of "using mana" there should be some inpact on the world or the mage (Dragon Age magic is a wonderful example, but there are many more).

This, magic in my world is fluffed OOC as tapping into and using the divine reality manipulation interface, and is fluffed IC as the ability to command and manipulate spirits*, except for one very strange path which revolves around pushing away spirits and denying magical energy (it does basically the same thing, but in reverse). Magery is the ability to sense 'data trails' or the paths of spirits, with higher levels being better at it, but in most places anybody can try for a spell (this is how most of the church's Templars are able to use their gift of denial. I like Dragon Age).

*Which are the DRMI, sometimes, it's complicated.


That said, I tire of magic users capaple of doing everything and rather have specialists. Consider a druid or a necromancer – less versatile, but so much better background/fluff. You can still have generalists I guess, but choosing a powerful spell or an area of expertise should have a huge impact imho. Otherwise magic becomes just another tool, which is fine but overdone imho.

I agree, but it's hard to discourage generalists without artificial limits. I've sort of managed to do it by having a good number of known paths (there are other paths) which each interact with a different type of spirit, and making the high level effects a pain to cast unless you're really good (fireball is a -4 to cast, as is lightning bolt, things like command or mass sleep hit -7), but a character could still buy IQ-2 in a bunch of paths and have a variety of effects available semi-reliably.

To OP, what a magic user needs is what the fiction says they need. In my case this was a variety of effects a magic user could theoretically hide as well as some effects that are scary for most of the populace, such as fireballs and mind control (thankfully all the tier 5 mind spells have been lost, because they are half the reason only the church uses [heavily disguised] magic). The fiction has people fearing them though, so buff spells became less important compared to minor effects that can be scaled up to horrible levels, but also a way for people to take them down easily, which is why the 'gift of denial' path exists. If in the fiction mages can do anything (I'm looking at YOU, D&D) then the fiction needs to be toned down.

[Ogh_the_Second]

I believe the question is moot until you have figured out the premises of your game at large. What sort of universe do you want to portray with your game?

For example, I have played rather low-magic RP games where the true force of 'magic' was mostly the power of suggestion. Therefore, 'magic-users' (witches, priests, etc.) were those people who had gained the authority to lay curses on others, which tended to become true because of fate/karma/self-fulfilling prophecies/narrative demands. This was a Big Thing, and afforded great status to magic-users. However, they would not be able to conjure the smallest ball of fire in any way.

[JAL_1138]

A magic-user needs d4 hit points rolled even at first level, Con bonus capped at +2 maximum, spell failure chance, casting time modifier to initiative, terrible THAC0, and drops a spell being cast if hit at all, regardless of damage taken (if any). Oh, and a crippling fear of housecats.

[Comet]

A magic user needs to be able to use magic. Maybe not nonstop, but during the course of an adventure, a magic user should never turn into a magic not-user because his magic runs out.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but are you sure this needs to be such an absolute statement? Kind of like saying that a soldier stops being a soldier when he runs out of bullets. I think it's fine to have an archetype that is defined by a particular aspect but seeing what that archetype does when denied that aspect can be equally interesting. Kind of besides the point of this thread, but I just wanted to jump in.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think that the options presented are all well and good, but not what a magic user needs at the core of things. In my opinion, a magic user needs to play differently from not-magic-user. The mundane options should be different enough from one another, but things might get a little weird if a backstabbery sneak is more divergent from a sword and board warrior type then the guy calling upon spirits to throw fireballs around.

Personally, I could live without some of the options presented with a mage, as long as attacks are varied, there are some debuffs/buffs to pass around, and some sort of non-combat utility. Doesn't need to have too many things, but enough options to be able use magic most of the time. Themes and specializations are alright, but some sort of variation is needed.

Also, some dawn good fluff would be a nice addition.

[Knaight]

This sort of thing is ridiculously setting dependent. I recommend looking into real world mythic traditions, fantasy literature with interesting magic, and other such things. Then, after having done said research, develop something reasonably coherent and actually interesting. Only then is it worth going for the mechanical side.

[Maglubiyet]

A magic user needs to be able to use magic. Maybe not nonstop, but during the course of an adventure, a magic user should never turn into a magic not-user because his magic runs out.

There should also be treatment programs for characters who are using too much. Too many casual users end up getting hooked. Magic addiction is no joke.

[JAL_1138]

A wiz(z)ard also needs to be able to see the color octarine and be able to wield a halfbrick-inna-sock.

[noob]

Yes it is essential and there should be the maje(or maj?) class.

[Grinner]

Wrong question. Magic is an empty word which can mean pretty damn near anything you want it to mean in context of your game and setting. There is no "need", there's only what you want.

If I may springboard off this, I'd say it's not what a magic user needs that matters; it's what the setting dictates. The nature of a spellcaster will naturally follow the context provided by the setting. The mechanics are the interface by which the players interact with this world. Consequently, they need to match the setting.


Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but are you sure this needs to be such an absolute statement?

Yora's speaking with the AD&D wizard class in mind. He's been on an anti-AD&D wizard thing in the Other Games subforum.

[Cealocanth]

Damage spells (both ranged and melee)
Resist X spells (Armor, Environmental Protection)
Fix X spells (healing, cure disease, dispel magic)
Buff Spells (increase an attribute or ability's effectiveness)
Debuff spells (decrease an attribute or an ability's effectiveness)
Curse spells (saddle an opponent with something permanant and nasty, like polymorphs or draining levels)
Change world spells (Summoning walls, barriers, holes, other objects, or changing ambiance)
Movement spells (flight, teleportation, super-speed)
Control spells (mind control, entanglement, banish, paralyze, teleport other)
Summoning spells (creating, summoning, or otherwise making other creatures or monsters)
Cheating spells (instant knowledge, intuition, farsight, long distance messages, granting wishes or miracles, or otherwise changing 'unbreakable' rules)
Destroy everything spells (pretty much anything that can cause an apocalypse)

Collect them, trade them with your friends! Mix and match to form your own unique user of arcane, eldritch, and divine energies!

[Straybow]

A robust cost mechanism. Giving them a pile of points to spend doesn't do that, it's just a limit (or not, depending on how many points you give). "Robust" here means something that can't be buffed out of, and that has some sort of immediate negative effect. If costs are delayed they will mean nothing. If routinely overcome with a buff or two, or with healing, the cost won't mean very much.

For example, aging by small amounts will have an effect over a long time, but not while in combat. It gives a specific feel to the magic system, too. If every spell cast caused a weariness (perhaps related to the minor aging cost) imposing a cumulative –1 to all action resolution rolls, the effect would be immediately noticed. If they don't have to prepare spells or slots, then imposing a chance of casting failure isn't as limiting, but combined with some kind of weariness accumulating with each spell cast the limiting factor has real teeth.

Personally, just adapting a known spell list to a new system is simpler to my mind than trying to dream up an entirely new system. But that's a matter of taste. Knock yourself out.

[Talakeal]

I would love to help and have put a ton of thought into the topic, but your question is just a little too broad. If there is any details about what you are going for with your game, both mechanically and thematically, that would allow me to give more constructive advice.

[Elbeyon]

Power that makes them superior to others.

[noob]

I think the only ability a magic user needs is: solve problems who can not be solved with an axe.

[Grim Portent]

What does a magic user need?

http://i1312.photobucket.com/albums/t532/grimportent/Phenomenal%20Cosmic%20Powers_zps8s3dj5nb.gif (http://s1312.photobucket.com/user/grimportent/media/Phenomenal%20Cosmic%20Powers_zps8s3dj5nb.gif.html)

[VoxRationis]

I'm with Frozen Feet on this one. Magic is that which cannot be done by natural means. All that a magician really needs to do is have knowledge and powers which are not the province of normal men. That can range from creating worlds and rewriting reality to simply knowing chemistry, biology, and psychology in an age of ignorance.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

All of it depends on what a player wants from magic.

I personally kind of like the idea that people can't become a generalized wizard (or can, but should think about choosing not to for the best stories).

Styles can vary wildly. Some magic users want it mostly for flavor. An elementalist throwing fireballs and lightning while making people slip on ice is not that different from a fighter with a hand cannon and a tripping polearm.

On the other hand, the main reason to include magic in the first place is to have varieties that are at least sort of unlike anything non-magical.

What that means depends on the setting, but in general: if there's a skill that can make you do something cool (seeing in the dark, climbing a wall) and a spell that does the same thing only now it also works on magical darkness/walls too than that's just the same thing as the flavor magic above. The fact that the magical version often ends up working much better at almost no cost is just an extra insult to nonmagic characters. This is also where the line blurs. If an otherwise normal character can communicate with animals on a level that's practically talking, does that count as magic? Is invisibility still a fun spell in a world where people spend their entire careers building their stealth skills? Teleportation is really handy, but, you know, same thing, it's just a replacement of slower nonmagical equivalents.

What will always be fun is the really creative stuff, and I kind of just realized while writing this how much magic there is that doesn't fall in that category. Speaking to plants, that's something you just can't do without magic. Turning someone into a frog. Cursing someone so that he'll scratch his but every time he hears the word "manners". Reading minds. Some of the uses for that stuff are still very comparably to things you could do with normal means, but not all of them. Fun magic is often mostly about "different" rather than "better".

[NichG]

I'd say that what magic and magic users really need is something that distinguishes them beyond being the 'everything that isn't mundane' box. Part of the reason that there's often such a big generalist problem is that once the word 'magic' comes into play, for a lot of people the instinct is to allow that to excuse any particular details and just be an explanation in its own right: 'How does it work? Magic!'

But if you do that, then you have the issue that you can't logically determine what should or shouldn't be included (or, for example, you end up with the conclusion that nothing should be excluded). It's as if you defined a class of things 'abilities' which are anything that a character can do, and then ask 'what does an ability-user need?'.

So the starting point to address this is to think about something more specific first, rather than immediately focusing on the 'magic' part of it. First ask yourself 'what particular thing exists in the world that I want to give more detail to?'. Then figure out, specifically, what its nature is. Try to avoid starting from very broad things like 'the energies of creation' or 'the power of the gods', because that tends to make any barriers between things artificial, so in turn you get a gradual erosion of that towards things that can do anything/everything. Instead, try to start from the limitations - allow it to only do one particular thing - and then expand from that point using logic.

E.g. you could start from a point like 'there is a force in the world that exists between similar things, which brings those things closer together'. Then to expand that, you can use various different meanings of 'bringing things closer together' - it could make them more similar, or similar in ways they were previously different, or cause a physical pull on the things, or allow someone to use the one thing to find the other. So if you build outwards from there, the limitations of the magic system will be much more natural and obvious to you, and that should help combat scope drift.

[Milo v3]

Nothing. Magic has the possibility of doing anything, but it only needs to do at least one thing.

[Arbane]

I'm with Frozen Feet on this one. Magic is that which cannot be done by natural means. All that a magician really needs to do is have knowledge and powers which are not the province of normal men. That can range from creating worlds and rewriting reality to simply knowing chemistry, biology, and psychology in an age of ignorance.

Yes.

There should be some things that ARE easier/safer to do by non-magical means, as well.

[VoxRationis]

Oo, good point. One of the things which distinguishes D&D (and those things which are intellectually descended from it, such as a lot of fantasy videogames) from a lot of fantasy that it stems from is that in D&D, magic is almost always "safe", with a very few exceptions. Spells rarely backfire or have a significant cost, something which is prevalent in a lot of other stories. I think this is a weakness not only from a balance standpoint, but from a flavor standpoint. I like to remember the quote from A Song of Ice and Fire: "Sorcery is a sword without a hilt. There is no safe way to grip it." While that might be a little bit much for many RPG systems, I think putting in some sort of cost or danger associated with magic is a good way to make sure people don't use it without consideration.

[Reltzik]

Oh, WOW.

That depends on SO much.

I suggest you read GNS Theory (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/). Even if you don't agree with its conclusions, it should help you get a flavor for the right questions to ask.

But here's some important questions before we can even ask what a mage needs.

1) What kind of genre are you working in? Some sort of fantasy, obviously, but is it modern urban fantasy or high medieval fantasy or Victorian horror? The flavor of the mage differs between each of these.

2) What are your game sessions like? Are you combat-heavy or RP-heavy or puzzle-heavy? This will dictate the abilities that are of use to your mage. For now, I'll assume a mix of these.

3) Is your group happy letting one person after another have the spotlight solo, or do most of them need to be interacting with the GM most of the time? For now, I'll assume that some solo-scenes are tolerated, for a short time, so long as they are exceptions rather than the rule.

In any event, you're clearly using a class system, which implies that you're not going with pure point-buy and you aren't having the entire party be mages, like in a WoD game. So I'd suggest a few guidelines here.

A) The mage needs to have his own job separate and distinct from the mundanes. Assume for the moment (because you haven't told us the details) two types of mundanes -- the big tough bruiser type, and the sneaky skillful type (or a spectrum between the two extremes). The mage needs to either do some stuff they can't, or do some stuff orders of magnitude better than they can. Similarly, each should have stuff they do better than the mage. The party should be able to survive but be inconvienced by missing members of any role, including the mage. This should be true in combat and outside of combat, during RP and outside of RP.

B) Some abilities should be performed very well by all classes, including defeating enemies. (Whether you do this with damage or sleep spells isn't that important a distinction.)

C) The mage needs to have moments to shine, but can't be OP. The mage should be able to stand against any class, and any class should be able to stand against him. If you're asking "why would anyone play a fighter", then you're doing it wrong.

D) Avoid the rock-paper-scissors approach where everyone has their own kryptonite. Everyone should have moderate defenses against all modes of attack (or at least be able to build a workable character as such), and good defenses against some.

E) Don't give the mage any abilities that mechanical effects hugely different from any other class. I'm not talking 4th ed here, but if mages have a one-turn "save or suck" or "save or lose" ability, then other classes should have abilities that fit in those categories too.

F) What's the appeal of playing the mage TO THE PLAYERS? Do they like the thematic appeal of commanding the raw elements? Make that theme an important part of the mage. Do they like being the smart guy? Make that an important part of the mage... and no, not just the stat, make important character decisions an important part of the mage.

G) What are your resource limits? Do your fighters and rogues have to deal with running out of abilities, magic power, or fatigue for the day? Do they have to spend money to use their most powerful abilities? If so, impose similar limits on the mage. If not, then don't. In particular, I'd avoid the "memorized spells" approach. It's a headache. Oh, it's okay for DnD I guess, especially since it's so distinctively DnD, but leave it there.

H) Is there a reason to have multiple types of mage... like an elemental wizard versus a mentalist psion? Hybrid classes like a mage-warrior?

[goto124]

Oo, good point. One of the things which distinguishes D&D (and those things which are intellectually descended from it, such as a lot of fantasy videogames) from a lot of fantasy that it stems from is that in D&D, magic is almost always "safe", with a very few exceptions. Spells rarely backfire or have a significant cost, something which is prevalent in a lot of other stories. I think this is a weakness not only from a balance standpoint, but from a flavor standpoint. I like to remember the quote from A Song of Ice and Fire: "Sorcery is a sword without a hilt. There is no safe way to grip it." While that might be a little bit much for many RPG systems, I think putting in some sort of cost or danger associated with magic is a good way to make sure people don't use it without consideration.

It's what other systems have done, but I doubt DnD can do it without facing backlash.

[Anonymouswizard]

It's what other systems have done, but I doubt DnD can do it without facing backlash.

Oh, the delicious not irony!

...I cast create more balanced magic system.
*the spell miscast*
*the fans are angry that a sacred cow was slaughtered for the spell*

RPG designers really need to get better at casting spells.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Personally, I favour a magic system in which you can do anything you can define and express. The balance is entirely on the cost side: travelling through time might take more energy than present within a few light years, but it can be done. Taking the shape of Eldritch Horror #15 is possible, if you can define and express what it looks like. You can express this in mechanics by having loads of pre-packaged spells, or by allowing people to make their own from components. D&D 3.5 psionics work pretty well on the pre-packaged side, between the variety of powers (not counting spell to power variants), augmentation and metapsionic feats.

D&D spells often go wrong on the 'define and express' bit. Spells that are simple, essentially 'release energy in the general direction of enemy', tend to suck, like fireball. Spells that 'do X to enemy' tend to be quite powerful. Spells of the latter type somehow find a way to do X, with no player input as to how. Charm monster finds a way to make the target friendly, regardless of personality, neurobiology and so on. At the far end of the scale, spells like shapechange hold massive amounts of information, at no apparent cost.


For your new system, I recommend that you do not ignore the cost of complexity.

[goto124]

tend to suck, like fireball

Really? :smalltongue: