Magical Manipulation

[Sabeta]

Sorry if this entirely the wrong forum, but I generally regard the Homebrew forum for more major works than simple rules adjustment. Anyway, in my homebrewed campaign there's a couple of tweaks I'd like to make for the sake narrative. I was wondering how potentially game-breaking each of these could be, listed from least to most in my view.

1) Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard can choose any of Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma as their casting stat at level 1. This is primarily caused by my setting treating these three disciplines as applications of magic, rather than sources of power. Warlocks do not bargain with dark powers, they've simply studied spells and applied them in an efficient manner.

At its simplest level, this allows more race freedom. At a more damaging level this opens up synergy between Wizard and Warlock that could potentially be gamebreaking.

2) More Spells-Known for Sorcerers. After playing the old Favored Soul Sorcerer I'm starting to feel that it's not really OP. It's strong compared to other Sorcerer brands, but the Warlock is keeping up just fine and I imagine a Wizard wouldn't be hurting. I've seen cases made for it given that Favored Soul is very similar to Valor Bard, and was wondering if it would disturb anything by giving Sorcerers limited-access Spells Known based on their Origin.

3) Any spell that has an effect like "the creature knows it was under the effects of a spell" has that part of it removed. For example, Friends now has zero drawback. The caveat to this huge buff, is that any caster known to have access to those spells would be immediately mistrusted by most people. Not to the point of exclusion mind you, but the public would look at them in the same way we look at a used car salesman. Bards in particular would be seen as a shady sort due to the effects of their songs, but would still be allowed to perform at bars or public squares so long as "there's no funny business."

If that's too strong, what if those spells become Touch spells. (Unless they're AoE, or Suggestion)

The main reason I ask is because I worry that any or all of these things might destabilize the game too far. This is mostly buffs for casters who don't really need buffs, but I feel the adjustments are minor enough to be tolerable or at least healthy for roleplay.

[Sigreid]

1. I don't think this will really change anything in the game except what race some people choose for their character. I also personally like getting rid of the pact for warlocks.

2. More spells known, but I don't think it will break the game. On the sorcerer I have I do find it unnecessarily frustrating to have so few spells, though he's an awesome battle field controller. Better at that than my wizard.

3. This will make enchantments a lot more powerful and useful. Their biggest limitation right now is their double edged sword nature. Take away one of the edges and they'll see a lot more use.

IMO None of these changes are terrible.

[Corran]

1) Hmm, I think that would make int a dump stat for everyone. So not cool. Every wizard would choose cha or wis over int. As for race freedom, well, it doesn't hurt too much playing a halforc wizard or a high elf cleric (etc) as it seems on paper.

2) Oh yes. I've been hearing a lot of people in this forum asking for this, and it was not until very recently that I tried my hand in a few sorcerer builds that I realized how right they were about it. Especially in the case of the new fs, I couldn't even begin picking so few spells from 2 spell lists. Made me wonder if that new fs was meant to be a practical joke or sth. Bottom line, I dont think it would be op, I think it is very much needed .

[zeek0]

1) Quite fine. There was once a houserule posted here that advocates for players choosing their casting stat from *any* stat, and a found no mechanical problem with it.
2) A great idea. Here's just one homebrew attempt I found at doing just that. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?413398-Sorcerous-Origin-Bonus-Spells

3) This seems to me to be the most dangerous. First, you need to figure out how it works in the world. Does the victim have a blank, or do they remember having those urges themself?

Also, like all mind magic... it would encourage extreme public fear, not just the mild discomfort of a car salesman. These are spells that *remove free will*. Imagine people being afraid for their daughters/sons, being afraid that a simple interaction with a stranger can cause them to give away their money and their secrets. In the world I DM, mind spells are outlawed to the same degree as assault and rape.

Now this can be amended in some ways. The leaders in the world might not create such heavy laws if they have special training to resist/identify mind manipulation. Or if magic is rare, there may be no rules on the book.

But note: any civilized society would still punish mind manipulation. A fundamental tenat of most societies is that the individual has a right to their thoughts and volition. Mind manipulation removes will, making your body and mind a plaything for those with greater power.

[solidork]

RE: Charm Effects

Some of this depends on how you adjudicate the effects of these spells. If you're going by what the rules actually say, Friends just makes it easier to influence someone with Deception/Persuasion/Intimidation. Charm person is the same, except that they also can't attack you and they treat you as a "friendly acquaintance". You still need to make ability checks to try and convince them of things and this isn't carte blanche to convince them of literally anything; people have things that they will refuse to do no matter how persuasive you are. This all goes out the window once you get Suggestion. As far as Suggestion goes... watch Jessica Jones and you won't be so cavalier about using it.

Also, you can't just cast spells in public and expect everyone to just not care. If you think about it, it's quite possible that casting spells in public would be against the law or highly regulated. You might need to apply for some kind of license and wear some kind of badge or clothing that obviously identifies you as a spell caster.

It's interesting to think about a society that is especially paranoid about enchantment magic. Here are some other ways societies might react. I'm not advocating that you should include these since it probably would be unfun for someone who wanted to get up to some trickery:
-Some people might be trained to recognize the somatic/verbal components of charm spells
-Material components that are associated with those spells could be regulated.(ex: applying makeup in public is a huge taboo)
-Complete abandonment of bargaining as part of everyday financial transactions. Things have listed prices and that is what you pay.
-Customary greetings originated partly from checking if someone is disguised by an illusion. (for a example, a kiss on the cheek would defeat any illusion that changed height, facial hair, face shape)

[Sabeta]

Interesting ideas all around on my third point. I thought I'd add some clarity.

The Verbal component of spells is spoken in glossolalia rather than language, and is different for every person. For an example of what is likely Glossolalia, see the Voynich Manuscript.
The way I adjudicate these spells, is that they cannot make someone do something they didn't already consider. A greedy merchant for example could not be charmed to part with his gold; however, a peaceful protest may be encouraged to become violent as tensions rise. People tolerate the existence of this magic because everyone knows that deep down inside, a Bard cannot make them do something they didn't already want to do.

Plus, if someone knows you're a bard, they'll start of mistruting everything you say. Social encounters become difficult for you without relying on Friends, but relying on friends is likely to get you an angry mob once people start putting the pieces together. My main goal with this adjustment is to give Enchantments a bit more breathing room. These spells seem kind of modest if you aren't manipulating someone into a huge gain and then killing them later, or being forced to use a Disguise Kit. I want them to apply to a greater variety of situations, but with a more social cost then a "alright now we have to kill that guy or he'll tell everyone we've got mindhacks."

If you think it's still too risky I can drop it. This one isn't really dependent on the setting.

[zeek0]

Interesting ideas all around on my third point. I thought I'd add some clarity.

The Verbal component of spells is spoken in glossolalia rather than language, and is different for every person. For an example of what is likely Glossolalia, see the Voynich Manuscript.
The way I adjudicate these spells, is that they cannot make someone do something they didn't already consider. A greedy merchant for example could not be charmed to part with his gold; however, a peaceful protest may be encouraged to become violent as tensions rise. People tolerate the existence of this magic because everyone knows that deep down inside, a Bard cannot make them do something they didn't already want to do.

Plus, if someone knows you're a bard, they'll start of mistruting everything you say. Social encounters become difficult for you without relying on Friends, but relying on friends is likely to get you an angry mob once people start putting the pieces together. My main goal with this adjustment is to give Enchantments a bit more breathing room. These spells seem kind of modest if you aren't manipulating someone into a huge gain and then killing them later, or being forced to use a Disguise Kit. I want them to apply to a greater variety of situations, but with a more social cost then a "alright now we have to kill that guy or he'll tell everyone we've got mindhacks."

If you think it's still too risky I can drop it. This one isn't really dependent on the setting.

If you don't grasp the gravity of this ethical situation, then I'd drop it altogether. Imagine this scenario, and how it would shape public opinion:

Fifteen year old Jimmy is walking home from school. Jimmy is a good kid, and he always respects his teachers. He is curious about the world, and wants to experience it all.
Enter the Dread Lord Vathras. Vathras sidles up to Jimmy, and casts charm person on him. The Dread Lord gives Filini crystals to our young Jimmy, a very addictive psionic stimulant. Jimmy was always curious about them, even though his mother warned him against them.
After a polite request from the Dread Lord, Jimmy jams the crystals into his ear, the traditional way to use Filini crystals. After coming to at the hospital, he remembers agreeing to use the crystals of his own volition.

I suppose what I mean to display is that people aren't static, but a whole mess of conflicting and changing impulses and ideas. To make the victim of this violation be ignorant of it is all the worse, because they believe they freely betrayed their leader, freely committed murder, freely incited a riot. And it's all the more socially terrifying, because it's a crime you can never know you were the victim of.

TL;DR: Mind magic is ethically squidgy already - no need to make it the perfect crime as well.

[Beelzebubba]

What are you giving martials to match the huge boost in power and flexibility of casters?

[Unoriginal]

3) Any spell that has an effect like "the creature knows it was under the effects of a spell" has that part of it removed. For example, Friends now has zero drawback. The caveat to this huge buff, is that any caster known to have access to those spells would be immediately mistrusted by most people. Not to the point of exclusion mind you, but the public would look at them in the same way we look at a used car salesman. Bards in particular would be seen as a shady sort due to the effects of their songs, but would still be allowed to perform at bars or public squares so long as "there's no funny business."

If that's too strong, what if those spells become Touch spells. (Unless they're AoE, or Suggestion)

Why remove the drawbacks?

I mean, you're giving any caster impossible to detect mind control power. People wouldn't be mistrustful of them, they'd be under the caster's power.

It also removes any incentive for non-mind-controlling interaction.

[Unoriginal]

The way I adjudicate these spells, is that they cannot make someone do something they didn't already consider. A greedy merchant for example could not be charmed to part with his gold; however, a peaceful protest may be encouraged to become violent as tensions rise. People tolerate the existence of this magic because everyone knows that deep down inside, a Bard cannot make them do something they didn't already want to do.

Yeah, no, people aren't going to be more tolerant because you can only make them do what they want to do. People don't do those things for a reason, like not wanting to deal with the consequences, shame at even having the idea, or the like. Making them do it is even more likely to make them hate you.



Plus, if someone knows you're a bard, they'll start of mistruting everything you say. Social encounters become difficult for you without relying on Friends, but relying on friends is likely to get you an angry mob once people start putting the pieces together.

And so Bards will be ran out of town as soon as people learn they're bards, shopkeeps will make them pay more, guards will find the faintest excuse to get them thrown out of town or put in jail, etc.



My main goal with this adjustment is to give Enchantments a bit more breathing room. These spells seem kind of modest if you aren't manipulating someone into a huge gain and then killing them later, or being forced to use a Disguise Kit. I want them to apply to a greater variety of situations, but with a more social cost then a "alright now we have to kill that guy or he'll tell everyone we've got mindhacks."


So instead you're making it "alright now we have to kill that guy because he learned that we can use mind control, and he'll tell everyone otherwise". You're replacing the "victim known you screwed them over" with "if people know you have this power, your social life is over."



What are you giving martials to match the huge boost in power and flexibility of casters?

This is also an important question.

[Sabeta]

What are you giving martials to match the huge boost in power and flexibility of casters?

I haven't quite planned it out just yet, and it was beyond the scope of this thread. My current idea is adding pseudo-spells in the form of Martial Arts that have various in and out of combat applications. The main problem I'm foreseeing with that one though is stepping on the toes of Martials who already traded power for versatility, such as Monk. I agree that if I'm giving out buffs to Sorcerer and possible casters as a whole then Martials will needs some TLC as well.

As for bullet 3, seems people feel pretty strong about so I'll drop it. Most of these ideas are based on being a cool or interesting magic system, and then trying to balance them out later. I still stand that most Charm spells aren't all that different from a successful Persuasion/Intimidation check anyway, which a high level bard could already destroy lives with. Burning a spell slot for an easier pass on Persuasion doesn't seem excessively OP to me, but I'll take your word for it.

On the subject of ideas though, another one popped up while I was doing my write-up for casters.

One thing I feel is important is that casting disciplines feel unique. In my setting Warlock, Wizard, and Sorcerer are merely different executions of magic. Since that part is purely a fluff change I won't dive too much into it (unless you ask), but one thing I'd like to consider is the following.

All mage disciplines can specialize in one school of magic. For my players I'll provide a list of roleplaying quirks (that can be taken or left) that helps explain the kind of person who would make that school their passion. ie: An Evoker is often covered in bandages or has singed eyebrows from one too many experiments gone wrong. In addition, they gain a (hopefully) minor boon. For example, an Illusionist is keenly aware of subtle details that most people would miss. You can spend 1 minute analyzing a person or creature to learn a few facts about them. (Mostly roleplaying information that would help an Illusionist choose the illusion most likely to get a response out of someone)

I feel like I'm probably going too far with Magic, but whatever increases I give to magic I'll give comparable boons to Martial later.

[zeek0]

I haven't quite planned it out just yet, and it was beyond the scope of this thread. My current idea is adding pseudo-spells in the form of Martial Arts that have various in and out of combat applications. The main problem I'm foreseeing with that one though is stepping on the toes of Martials who already traded power for versatility, such as Monk. I agree that if I'm giving out buffs to Sorcerer and possible casters as a whole then Martials will needs some TLC as well.

As for bullet 3, seems people feel pretty strong about so I'll drop it. Most of these ideas are based on being a cool or interesting magic system, and then trying to balance them out later. I still stand that most Charm spells aren't all that different from a successful Persuasion/Intimidation check anyway, which a high level bard could already destroy lives with. Burning a spell slot for an easier pass on Persuasion doesn't seem excessively OP to me, but I'll take your word for it.

On the subject of ideas though, another one popped up while I was doing my write-up for casters.

One thing I feel is important is that casting disciplines feel unique. In my setting Warlock, Wizard, and Sorcerer are merely different executions of magic. Since that part is purely a fluff change I won't dive too much into it (unless you ask), but one thing I'd like to consider is the following.

All mage disciplines can specialize in one school of magic. For my players I'll provide a list of roleplaying quirks (that can be taken or left) that helps explain the kind of person who would make that school their passion. ie: An Evoker is often covered in bandages or has singed eyebrows from one too many experiments gone wrong. In addition, they gain a (hopefully) minor boon. For example, an Illusionist is keenly aware of subtle details that most people would miss. You can spend 1 minute analyzing a person or creature to learn a few facts about them. (Mostly roleplaying information that would help an Illusionist choose the illusion most likely to get a response out of someone)

I feel like I'm probably going too far with Magic, but whatever increases I give to magic I'll give comparable boons to Martial later.

On a final note, I think that we are more worried at the horror (3) would create and the ramifications on worldbuilding. If you have not seen Jessica Jones, I is both wonderful television and a great example of what is at stake.

On the subject of spell schools. Okay, I understand giving personality traits to wizard schools, because maybe different institutions have different cultures. But the schools are just one way to divide the entire spell list, and what if a character learned magic outside of that paradigm?

For example, imagine a wild magic sorcerer. She grew up in the polar regions, mastering both the ice of her homeland and fire as a means of survival against the elements. She also mastered future sight, since she came from a long line of seers that act as shamans to the people there.

Now, this example won't necessarily fit. She isn't an experimental evoker with burns on the hands, but a practiced mage who uses magic as a means to survival. She uses divination magics, but only to see the future, not to create magical sensors. It doesn't quite fit the categories.

Bottom line, I would let the players get creative with their own characters. Don't foist personalities upon them. Allowing them to select some minor abilities to augment their character sounds really cool, such as the one you listed in connection with illusion magic. But classifying minor abilities means that you don't get to see the abjuration-focused detective who uses magic because he wants to always return safely to his family. Pinning that invesigative ability to illusion seems more a way to play into how you imagine Illusionists to be, than how illusionists could be.

[Sabeta]

Specialization would happen in only one category. There'd be nothing stopping your character from learning Divinations, you would just personally identify as an Evoker who happened to pick up

Going a step further, just to proof that the personality quirks aren't a requirement in even the loosest sense, if your character is far removed from society they might not identify as any type of magic other than the knowledge that what they're doing is magic. Hoity Toity scholars cloistered in there towers may try to categorize you if the subject came up, but aside from that the player has no obligation to follow Spell Schools.

The general idea behind the personality traits, is that each school of magic is independently researched. Illusionists research Illusions, but
And again, the distinction doesn't make a huge difference. A player could just as easily say they don't believe in any fundamental differences between magic, and instead choose to research them all in order to try and uncover the underlying principles that drive magic as a science. That's fairly in line with your typical Wizard in the D&D setting, and only really changes the setting over combat. If I had a player who defied my specializations in favor of "doing it all", I would probably hammer out a different kind of bonus for that, perhaps learned a little bit later in level.

But yes, Illusionists in the setting are known to be hyper analytical, to the point of creeping people out for staring at them too much. Hence why they're given that trait, they need to study every minute detail about their surroundings to make sure they create flawless illusions. That doesn't stop Wizard Sherlock Holmes from taking on Abjuration magics so he still makes sure to get home, nor does it stop him from being a little more sensible about how he goes about analyzing his surroundings so that it seems more natural and less off-putting. It also doesn't stop him from specializing in Abjuration for an unrelated bonus and then just making an Insight Roll to try and learn at least surface level information.

Personality Traits are there to show what's typical in this setting, but adventurers have every right to be atypical if they choose; hence why I said they could take it or leave it.

[zeek0]

Cool, cool. I like that you are willing to change it up for characters off the beaten path. And I understand if your setting plays more into fantasy stereotypes - Pratchett is only one example of this working well.

[StoicLeaf]

1) feels like you're watering down the classes. I don't like it from an RP standpoint, from a mechanics pov I can't really think of a situation where it would be problematic.
2) more watering down but it won't change much mechanics wise.
3) I don't see the point for this one. If you're building the world decently then charm spells are quite limited anyway. I suppose it makes the caster *slightly* harder to accuse.

[zeek0]

1) feels like you're watering down the classes. I don't like it from an RP standpoint, from a mechanics pov I can't really think of a situation where it would be problematic.
2) more watering down but it won't change much mechanics wise.
3) I don't see the point for this one. If you're building the world decently then charm spells are quite limited anyway. I suppose it makes the caster *slightly* harder to accuse.

I think that (1) is a terrible idea if the players choose a casting stat in the interest of munchkinry or mechanics. I would have a player approach me with a concept, and only then might I allow it. But good role-playing can work here.

Examples: A woman whose knowledge of their god relies less on faith and more on rigid intellectualism of the requisite tenets. A man who, as foretold, came to a forest and was blessed by the spirits there to be a defender of the natural order. A woman who channels arcane might through the ancestral spirit of her father, who was a great wizard. All of these are flavorful, and all require a different casting stat than prescribed. This isn't a 'watering down' of the classes (what does that mean?), it's a method of allowing for the creativity of your players.

[MrStabby]

1) Yes, this is no problem. You do have to check your DM style to ensure that there are meaningful in and out of combat checks for each stat so that there is always a penalty do dumping a given stat (so checks where it hurts if you don't make it and can't just rely on someone else in the party knowing it). It also helps to have a world where the distribution of spell saves is more even. More banishment, maze and illusion spells in the world would work well.

2) This is a big problem and should be treated very carefully. The favoured soul was re-released because the first version was far too powerful. The only thing holding back the sorcerer is it's number of spells known. Once you lift this limitation then you have all kinds of issues. On the other hand the re-release of the favoured soul is much better. It is more elegant and more balanced. I think that allowing sorcerers to select spells from either the sorcerer list or a "bloodline" list would open up stronger themes but without the issues that the original favoured soul had.

3) This would need to be tested. The issue about casters being suspect is a bit off though. How do they tell someone is a caster? Is there a big neon sign over their head? That barbarian might have taken magic initiate or the fighter multiclassed with a wizard (or be an eldritch knight). This might work or might not - depending on world. Be careful you are not stepping on the toes of other persuasive characters that do not use magic though.