PDA

View Full Version : How Low Can You Go: The Minimum Magic Required



Cluedrew
2017-12-21, 04:19 PM
How little magic can a magician actually use, and still feel like a magician when you read about/play as them?

That is the question this thread is based around. I have often seen people require a certain amount of actual magic usage for a magic using character. Which does make sense except it seems to be a bit higher than I expected. In some extreme cases there seems to be an assumption that using a spell will be the only way (or the base of any method) a magician will solve any problem.

On the other hand I've been building a system where it is kind of assumed that the primary magic user won't even be using magic every day, even if the whole day is spent on screen. (No they are not useless the rest of the time, character have a lot of different skills in this system.) And although the system is still in development, so far it seems to work.

But what do other people think? How little magic can a magician actually have/use and still be a magician? How does frequency vs. power effect it? Does the type of magic change it (discrete spells vs. free form vs. summoning vs. enchanting vs. ...) or how direct it is change that requirement? Does adding related skills (such as the non-magical identification of magical things) help?

Speak and be heard.


Sort of. It does fit into the large caster/martial debate in that reducing the amount of magic casters have comes up a lot in those conversations. In fact, one of those conversations is what sparked this idea.

However, this is NOT about the general caster/martial debate, nor is it only about how this question relates to the caster/martial debate. It is mostly about getting the feel of the magician right. We can relate that back after, but that is after.

Tinkerer
2017-12-21, 04:30 PM
Probably the minimum that I've seen someone be strongly magical and use very few spells was a face spellcaster along the lines of John Constantine. Infrequent and low level magic use but it added just that extra touch that was needed and defined the character. I don't quite think it's what you're after though.

Douche
2017-12-21, 04:36 PM
Game of Thrones does low magic pretty well imo, where things are always ambiguous to whether it was magic at all. But that doesn't really mesh well with a game where the players want control and whatnot.

Knaight
2017-12-21, 04:39 PM
At minimum I'd expect to see magic performed at least twice during a campaign, for effect. It's a very loose minimum in all other ways; freeform magic will do it, summoning will do it, fairly flimsy spells will do it as long as they get something done. The one factor that does matter is having some sort of choice in the matter - happening to have a prophetic vision alone doesn't really qualify as performing magic by my book. Deliberately inducing a prophetic vision absolutely does.

Alabenson
2017-12-21, 04:42 PM
In non-game media, what makes a magician or magic-using character for me is how often he uses magic in relation to the rest of the world. Take Gandalf, for example; in the LotR universe wizards are incredibly rare, so even though Gandalf appears to use magic very rarely when he does it's a big deal. But, take Gandalf and place him in Faerrun and all of a sudden he becomes incredibly underwhelming since there magic is much more common.

Now, if I'm playing a "magic-using character", one the other hand I expect magic to represent a significant part of my character's problem solving ability. It doesn't necessarily need to be flashy or the best way to solve every problem I encounter, but I do expect it to at least factor into how my character approaches most of the games challenges.

Cluedrew
2017-12-21, 09:46 PM
John Constantine [...] I don't quite think it's what you're after though.{Looks up character.} That's actually surprisingly close to the archetype I'm going for. A John Constantine analog might fit right in.


Now, if I'm playing a "magic-using character", one the other hand I expect magic to represent a significant part of my character's problem solving ability. It doesn't necessarily need to be flashy or the best way to solve every problem I encounter, but I do expect it to at least factor into how my character approaches most of the games challenges.Is that actually using magic, or would using a related skill count? To use a D&D example, does Knowledge: Arcana help get the feel across?

Jay R
2017-12-21, 10:56 PM
Here’s the actual magic Gandalf uses in roughly twenty years.

Fireworks in the shire.
Tells Bilbo, “Do not take me for conjurer of cheap tricks,” while conjuring a cheap trick.
Loses a staff duel against Saruman.
Says something to a moth, and waits for an Eagle to pick him up.
[In the book] Fights Nazguls at Weathertop.
[In the book] Enchants Butterbur's beer.
[In the book] Adds fire to the horses in the flood at the Ford of Bruinen.
[In the book] Causes his voice to go menacing and harsh, a shadow to pass over the sun, the porch to grow dark, and everyone to tremble in the Council of Elrond, by speaking in the tongue of Mordor.
[In the book] Casts some fireballs against some wolves.
[In the book] Starts a fire on Caradhras pass.
[In the book] Blesses Bill the pony to go home safely.
Lights the top of his staff by magic to lead them through Moria.
[In the book] Uses some kind of magic against the door in the Chamber of Mazarbul.
Wields the flame of Anor against the Balrog, where he dies.
Fights the Balrog all the way up the Endless Stair.
<he is resurrected, but that's not his magic>
Uses magic against Gimli’s, Legolas’s and Aragorn’s weapons.
Defeats Saruman in Theoden’s head.
Breaks Saruman's staff.
Shoots a blinding beam of light against the Nazgul, to save Faramir.
Stands firm against the Nazgul’s black breath (multiple times).
[In the book] Communicates mind to mind with Galadriel, Celeborn, and Elrond

Cosmix
2017-12-21, 11:33 PM
Personally I think a magician should have magic be something that a magician can use to solve at least one common problem the magician faces, or something that can be considered to be used consistently for multiple issues. Otherwise the magician just turns into someone that, while they know magic, loses all the magician feel for me.

Telok
2017-12-21, 11:41 PM
For me: it's going to depend on the reliability and power level of the magic within the game system which also usually translates inversely to the character's ability to contribute without magic.

If a magician can cast a spell and be assured of a powerful effect (or have a reasonable chance of an overwhelming effect) then you can get away with using magic perhaps every other game session1. The power level I'm referencing here is low level early editions of D&D, where a Sleep or Charm spell can make or break an entire encounter or three. Of course this is also predicated on the character being able to function without magical abilities for much of a game session. As the pre-WotC versions of D&D were heavily player skill based, the lack of non-spell game components in the wizard class was relatively unimportant.

At the other end of the spectrum you have systems that give a magician character lots of magic to use but make it pretty ineffective. Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e D&D all tend to take this path. A magician can use magic every minute of every day but the effects are all pretty tame relative to the power level of the game. For example; the character may be able to shoot fire or lightning all day but it is at such low damage, relative to the HP of the enemies, that using magic to win a fight is the same as just punching and kicking. Alternately magic may have so many failure points that while it works well when it works the player can't rely on it. To-hit roll, initial save, save at the start/end of every round, automatic negations, allies allowing additional chances to break effects, etc., all reduce how often a magician can use magic with enough of an effect to be effective in an encounter.

An important part of the equation is how effective the character is allowed to be without using magic. Just having a skill/stunt/stat roll system doesn't say anything. It's generally assumed that all characters will have access to that system and can interact with it equally. Additionally it's quite possible to structure a system so that characters cannot meaningfully participate. In 3e D&D after a certain level skills are essentially binary, either the character has it as a class skill and has full ranks (success) or they don't (failure). In 4e skills beyond stealth and perception were very strongly devalued in relation to class powers, and stunts were normally strength/dexterity based with attack and effect rolls thus making magician style characters unlikely to be able to use them effectively. In 5e bounded accuracy drives the system towards having the dice roll be more important than the character's abilities or the player's skills (a 6 Int ape has about a 5% change to beat a 20 Int, 20th level wizard at an arcana knowledge roll).

1. I'm assuming a 4 to 6 hour gaming session with the occasional pause, but no significant breaks.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-22, 03:39 AM
The answer to your question: no more magic than exists in real life. The feeling of magic and mysteriousness doesn't require any objective presence of the supernatural. I can look at people like Alesteir Crowley and say "that's a magician allright" with no faith in them having any functional, effective supernatural powers at all.

If you ask me, the desire for a magician to have fuctional, effective supernatural power is 50% power fantasy and 50% unwillingness or inability to realize that being a magician is a different ball game entirely than looking at one. Like a stage magician could tell you, once you know how a trick is done, the magic goes away.

Once you can rid yourself of one or both, a solution will quickly present itself. Like, if you realize the feeling of magic is nonsense anyway and you really just want to blow stuff up WITH YOUR MIND whenever and where ever you like, you can focus on making a game where you can do that whenever and where ever. If you realize that the role of a magician doesn't have to have jack to do with power and it's about how other people perceive you, you'll realize the question "how often to use magic?" is a gigantic red herring and will be able to portray that role even when a game or setting offers you nill supernatural power.

Lord Raziere
2017-12-22, 04:08 AM
Well I'm of the mindset that I just want to blow things up with my mind and don't care about the nonsense, so I'm squared away there.

the "presentation of magical power without actually being magical" though is interesting. I guess I could see someone with enough knowledge, showmanship and tools to replicate magic without actually being magical. basically a con artist whose con is making it look like he is a wizard and thus making money off of showy tricks, convincing people talismans and amulets actually do something when they don't and it was the psychological power of your belief making you more powerful all along, and throwing bombs designed to look like fireballs somehow. I do like playing people who can lie and trick their way into success after all. I think I once tried that character concept in Ironclaw, but the game never got off the ground, so I never got explore its full potential. would like to try it someday again I guess. just some guy who goes around uses all the cunning and props he can to trick people into thinking he is the most mystical wizardly guy ever so that they listen to him, get his Bluff score through the roof, the works.....

Guizonde
2017-12-22, 04:51 AM
i think my pf inquisitor spent the first 3 sessions without casting a single spell, relying only on a few of his passive abilities (detect alignment and judgement, mostly, one which is an at-will sla), and his superfluously large skill pool. after 7 sessions, i think i've only used 2 spells above cantrip strength.

everyone in my team considers me a spellcaster as able as the full-casters in the team nonetheless. i just tend to forget to use my spell-list until i remember i need to act like the "anti-evil" spellcasting machine i am.

plus, even my cantrips used correctly make it seem like i'm a friggin' high-op caster. i don't know if that tells more about my team than it should, but remember: just because you can cast a spell doesn't mean you have to (unless it's to waterboard somebody for 6 hours in the middle of a desert. "create water" is almost mandatory for that stunt).

then, there's also the fact that by being an inquisitor, i ping pretty high on the "detect magic" rating even without my gear. that's my playing style, that was influenced by a very "anti-magic sphere" trigger-happy dm and how to rely on cleverness and less magic to survive a few years ago. your cleric becomes a lot more than just a healbot or buffer when you can't cast anything.

Mechalich
2017-12-22, 06:43 AM
How little magic can a magician actually use, and still feel like a magician when you read about/play as them?


How you define 'magician' matters a lot for this purpose. Historically the overwhelming majority of people believed to have supernatural powers were religious figures. Most of them did not perform overt rituals on any sort of schedule but they were still clearly held apart based on the abilities they were presumed to have. Even later practicing magicians who believed they derived power from a non-divine source - like Alesteir Crowley - tended to function as cult leaders as much as they were 'magicians.' And of course a stage magician or mentalist or the like can earn a living performing a bunch of clever tricks and bits of slight of hand.

So is the question, say, 'how much supernatural power do you need to earn a living off of it?' Is usually, almost none, depending on the type of power. Divination, for example, can turn you into a practicing spellcaster in a snap. A fortune teller who has even the slightest bit of actual ability to foretell the future would do extremely well. Whereas someone who had the power to through around bolts of fire would at least need to be powerful enough to ignite things. It really doesn't take much.

In D&D terms, the ability to cast a single 1st level spell once a day (possibly even once every few days depending on the spell) is enough to make it as a spellcaster.

Yora
2017-12-22, 10:13 AM
I think you can still get pretty magical if the only magic power is to contact spirits and barter with them for services.

Bit of a cheat, as the possible services could replicate pretty much every spell imaginable, but it still limits the personal magical power considerably and makes magic much more time consuming and unreliable to use. You're probably not going to do it if it's not something really important and all simpler options have been exhausted

Lapak
2017-12-22, 12:18 PM
{Looks up character.} That's actually surprisingly close to the archetype I'm going for. A John Constantine analog might fit right in.

If you do go this route, keep in mind that while he does have legitimate magical power, Constantine’s effectiveness comes as much from being a con man as it does a magician. In RPG terms he’s almost literally a diplomancer, bluffing and tricking his way into defeating opponents that could crush him like a beer can in any rest of strength.

Tinkerer
2017-12-22, 12:51 PM
If you do go this route, keep in mind that while he does have legitimate magical power, Constantine’s effectiveness comes as much from being a con man as it does a magician. In RPG terms he’s almost literally a diplomancer, bluffing and tricking his way into defeating opponents that could crush him like a beer can in any rest of strength.

Indeed. Most days he uses his magical ability more as a telephone allowing him to contact entities so that he can talk to them, since supernatural creatures in the world have to follow rules he is more like a con man mixed with a lawyer. The second most frequent use is mind and luck magics influencing mortals for gambling and increasing his formidable charisma. Third would be using the magics on artifacts which he acquired through #1 & 2. On the rare occasion that he uses his magics in a directly offensive action against a mortal they are rituals which usually take days to execute. A pissed off mortal with a baseball bat will generally best him, which is why he normally keeps a meat shield around to handle them.

malloc
2017-12-22, 06:29 PM
No magic? No magic.

Fundamentally, what do we want when we play a spellcaster? We want to change the rules of the world. We want to ascend beyond the "mundane"--that's why we aren't playing martial classes (this game). The most prevalent (and obvious) way to do this is by casting spells.

But there are other ways of altering the rules. For years we as a species hunted and gathered. Then what happened? We changed the rules. With science. There are fantasy universes that argue that magic isn't anything more than another layer of science, like physics or chemistry. Or alchemy.

Imagine a player who can grant their teammates tremendous strength, or create holes in solid stone. Who can immobilize opponents in a pile of goo. Starting to sound like a wizard? All of this and more, possible with non-magical chemistry which, at the time, would've seemed identical to magic. And if you aren't opposed to spicing up regular science with a touch of magic, more possibilities come out.

And how would this character play? Well, you'd scout out the problems then spend some time crafting brews, collecting recipes, and doing research. Finding solutions from your multiple options at hand.

No magic.

Cluedrew
2017-12-22, 10:31 PM
If you ask me, the desire for a magician to have fuctional, effective supernatural power is 50% power fantasy and 50% unwillingness or inability to realize that being a magician is a different ball game entirely than looking at one. Like a stage magician could tell you, once you know how a trick is done, the magic goes away.Come on now, how many stories have ever really explained magic? Besides that I suppose I am more interested in the looking like a magician, but I don't want them to be con-artists, so I am interested in having them be magicians as well.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-23, 08:41 AM
Come on now, how many stories have ever really explained magic?

Heaps and heaps. It is a subgenre of its own in detective stories and mystery novels where the apparently magical or supernatural turns out to be a trick after all. Baskerville's Hound is pretty much an archetypal example by now. It is another subgenre of such stories as well as magical realism where a natural explanation is offered, but not confirmed, leaving in a possibility that the supernatural was involved after all.

Then there's subgenre of speculative fiction which leans hard on Clarke's third law, showing how sufficiently advanced science may appear like magic to us, or how our science may appear like magic to sufficiently unadvanced observer.

In TV Tropes speech, this is often called Doing In the Wizard, so you can go fish for more examples that way if you really want.

And that concludes my non-rhetoric answer to your rhetoric question. :smalltongue:


Besides that I suppose I am more interested in the looking like a magician, but I don't want them to be con-artists, so I am interested in having them be magicians as well.

That's a distinction without a difference.

Magic is a feeling and a practice. It's not a phenomena. It's not synonym for supernatural, anymore than science is synonym for natural, despite people often erroneously using it as such.

People who know what they're doing and who don't want to evoke the feeling, don't call what they do 'magic'. That's for people who don't know what they're doing and to whom the practice feels like magic because of that.

People who know what they are doing and want to evoke the feeling, know that there is a layer of deception in it, because the feeling of magic is caused by obscure or obfuscated causality. That's why most stage magicians, mentalists etc. in the real world tend to acknowledge that they are, fundamentally, con-artists, in their private persona at least. And it's also why stage magicians tend to make for some of the hardest skeptics.

And that's where we come back to the fact that being a magician and looking at a magician are different things. The magician when viewed from the outside only feels like a magician because you don't know WTF the magician is doing and how. The magician rarely, if ever, feels magical to themselves.

Like, let's take Yora's example magic system of dealing with spirits under scrutiny. Suppose I was the magician in that system. Yes, I would possess supernatural knowledge and have real supernatural power at my beck and call...but fundamentally, what I'd be doing would be the same I'm doing now, as pertains to you: BSing people to get them do what I want, using some combination of logos, pathos and ethos. The only thing that'd honestly make me different from ordinary people would be that I have Satan's phone number (etc.) on my phone. The only trick (and I'm not sharing) is how it got there, and once you know it... the magic goes away.

Strip the level of obfuscation, and I'm just calling in a friend for favors. No magic there.

RazorChain
2017-12-23, 10:44 AM
I'm running a Mythic Europe where 5 out of 6 character have something special about them, most don't deem it to be magic.

1st is Roberto, he has the fools luck, this he gets in the form of rerolls. Nobody considers this magical.

2nd is Luzio and he's a of a slayer order based losely on the witchers. The idea is that St. George and Merlin cooperated after St. George had slain the dragon and made a simple magic system based on signs. In the myth George marks him self with the sign from God to protect him before he charges the dragon with his spear/lance Ascalon. St. George is the founder of the slayer order. So the Slayers have access to simple elemental and protective signs to aid them in battle. Nobody considers Luzio to be a magician or a sorcerer even though he can shoot lightning from his fingertip or use a concussion blast or an flaming weapon.

3rd Osmund a 300 year old viking that the group picked up when traveling in Tír na NÓg (the faerie world). He has can enter a berserker rage that makes him supernaturally tough and strong. Nobody considers his character magical.

4th Alma, a warrior maiden with faerie blood. She has taken up the mantle as the knight of winter and has faerie magic that allows her to deck herself in armor made of ice and use a icy weapon spell, when she loses her temper her eyes will shine icy blue and tempetrature around her will drop. Even though the church has branded her as a witch and tried to burn her at a stake at one occasion nobody in the group considers her a witch or a sorceress.

5th Johannes. He's the only one who is considered a magician in the group even though he only knows 2 spells, the rest he uses improvised magic for. He rarely uses magic just so he doesn't get into trouble with the Church and Ordo Arcanum (the order of mages) as he isn't a member and it's a join or die membership.

So it's hugely a matter of perception.

SpoonR
2017-12-23, 03:25 PM
I can think of two books that had limited magic, for two different reasons.

Secret of the five magics (I think thats the name?) The last two magics were ones a magician would want to never use. One was powerful magic, but spells were fueled by your lifespan. And no way to get those years of life back. The other was demon summoning, contest of wills required every time, but the demon comes closer to winning every time.

Now the Black Company series. You had super-wizards in the Taken, but they felt more like beings of magic. Impossible to kill, but limited use of magic magic (lessee, one had shapeshift as an ability, one enchanted a table and pile of gold, one made flying carpets. The tornadoes were only mentioned in passing). It is also a very magical world.
But at the Company's level, the magic-users were more about being bizarre enough that you knew they were magicians, while using very little or very low-level magic. Silent using magic to pacify a hornet's nest until he could throw it. Magic missile (I mean golden hammer). Shadows improving the concealment of a hiding place. Really, most of Goblin and One-eye's stuff was enchanting items. Plenty of possible weird effects, but no spellslinging in combat; 99% of the time no magic, just weird crazy guys that everyone is slightly scared of.

One thing that strikes about low magic or offscreen magic users. The magical senses are what gets all the screen time. Someone who looks at a symbol and says "yup, thats a lightning ward. Everyone get rid of anything metal". Add a cantrip-level "minor spooky things" and you've got a magician.


Re: Constantine. I've had a teeny tiny exposure to him, but enough to see him as a weak-ish magician who uses deception as a force multiplier. You never know what dirty magic trick is in his back pocket. In a Gaiman spinoff comic (child of magic or something? something about a trenchcoat brigade?), winning a staredown with "how sure are you that I don't have the power to destroy you?". And a couple episodes of the TV, where his thing was magical senses, defenses, and countermagic judo (you attack me, I do something to turn the attack back at you)

Lord Raziere
2017-12-23, 03:46 PM
Strip the level of obfuscation, and I'm just calling in a friend for favors. No magic there.

Yeah, I have an artificer hobgoblin in an eberron game, they speak all their incantations for their spells in draconic. to everyone else this is mystical sounding. to her, she is just speaking programming code, because draconic is the programming code of the Eberron universe, after all the entire world is made of three dragons, the Draconic Prophecy is basically entirely in draconic, therefore to her the entirety of the world runs on Draconic OS and she is just inputting commands to make the system do things she programs it to do.

Quertus
2017-12-23, 05:11 PM
I haven't finished reading the thread yet, but I have a few answers.

As you know, I have a preference for running mages which feel Magical. I prefer mages who use magic constantly, like a modern technolophile uses tools. One for whom, if they have to resort to a mundane answer, such as using their feet to walk, they have failed as a Wizard. Moving? Yeah, there's an app a spell for that? Bathing? Breathing? Having babies? Yup, spell for that.

But, that's not the thread topic. What is the minimum amount of magic a mage must do, and still feel like a mage? Well, none. And, believe it or not, I've run this character. There are several ways to accomplish this.

The first way involves subterfuge. Just like about half the characters I run are actually deities come down in mortal guise (or otherwise just pretending to be something that they're not), nothing keeps a Wizard from pretending to be mundane. But the internal experience, viewing it from the PoV of the Wizard (or god or whatever) playing the mundane stats changes the experience. Now, from the outside, the character doesn't seem terribly magical - and, in fact, even people who know what to look for have difficulty noticing the difference.

From the PoV of "The Story", the minimum is once. I bring this up now, because it ties into my next "Wizard who never uses magic" - magic that is powerful but difficult to control, or magic which comes with (too great a) price. A Wizard feels very magical, to me, when he is constantly, desperately trying to find ways to avoid having to use his magic. Sadly, the easiest example to describe has nothing to do with magic - my berserk felt very much the Warrior, despite doing everything he could to find peaceful solutions to problems. But "The Story" only needs the Wizards to use his magic once, at the dramatically appropriate time, to feel magical. Better stories, IMO, usually have the Wizard do so at least twice - once to establish that he is magical, then the second time to resolve whatever dilemma he was added to the story to resolve in the first place. Need I remind people, though, that I would generally hate games structured "for the story".

A character can also feel very much a Wizard, to me, by having a magical past to draw upon and discuss. If my epic Academia mage, for whom this account was named, were to hang out with a bunch of 1st level characters, his experience (and appearance, I suppose) would still make him feel like a mage to me, even if he never cast a spell. Theoretically, I suppose, someone could play such a character, where that magical past was all "backstory", and then never cast a spell in game, and still feel magical.

But none of these techniques are particularly satisfying if the player expects something Magical. Properly setting expectations is key.

Anonymouswizard
2017-12-23, 06:57 PM
If they're very charismatic, none. A character can fell like a magician via magic tricks, bluffing, and arranging events (and unless you're hitting major levels of power most legitimate 'casts spells' magicians well rely on all of those to a greater or lesser extent, Constantine is a perfect example).

Otherwise, the minimum level of magic is one spell. It doesn't even have to be useful, it just has to do something with no simple rational explanation. It generally helps of it's not a passive ability, but it's not a strict requirement.

The lowest I've personally used is four spells, three of which I was legally allowed to use ('Compel Demon', 'Banish Demon', and 'Ward Area'). Another had about six spells, and used about three in the entire campaign (on the other hand he was very good at identifying magical effects without casting spells, which was useful). It's never stopped characters feeling magical, because in all honesty most players seem to fall back on the same ten spells most of the time anyway.

In a setting with any level of ritual magic, powerful magicians well tend to be intelligent, and intelligent magicians well realise that using magic effectively will require a lot of interfering with others. They won't always do it themselves, but unless they're purely interested in magical research they'll spend time arranging events directly or indirectly, tending not to use as much magic as they could due to spending more time doing other stuff.

In a setting with quicker magic (especially if it's innate) magicians will have to spend less time arranging events and can just fire off a spell. This means they can use magic more often, and might feel 'more magical'. However they eventually feel like superheroes, not magicians, as they're blowing stuff up with their mind instead of working.

And to me that's key, magicians have to work to succeed. Of you can just fire off an effect it feels more like technology (which is fine, bit it doesn't feel magical).

Cluedrew
2017-12-24, 11:19 AM
As you know, I have a preference for running mages which feel Magical. I prefer mages who use magic constantly, like a modern technolophile uses tools.A couple have touched on this matter but I'm going to quote you just out of respect for magical. The mysticism put up as a veil to stop people from realizing what was actually happening has a particular feel to it. A feel I'm trying to recapture while putting something real behind the curtain. So low magic with some non-magical "force multipliers" seems to be the way I'm doing it. I hadn't thought about it in those terms before this thread, but it works.

Also I agree with Anonymouswizard on the difference between superheroes and magicians. Which is why I tried creating a character with less magic in the first place. I guess I was just wondering if others would make it feel magic that way. So in the style of a true revelation, I got the answer I didn't even realize I was asking. Not that we have to stop talking about it.


Magic is a feeling and a practice. It's not a phenomena. It's not synonym for supernatural, anymore than science is synonym for natural, despite people often erroneously using it as such.Magic is a word that means too many things by too many people to pin down to one definition, as inconvenient as that is. Still by my own "most correct" definition (I've got at least 3 others for different situations) I would agree with you.

Concrete
2017-12-24, 12:04 PM
One thing a magic user can do is to be simply knowledgeable. To not so much work magic as to know magic and strange occurrences, and be able to explain it.

Someone mentioned Gandalf before, and how little magic he actually used. But what to me defined Gandalf as a wizard was his knowledge about ancient, mysterious and evil things.

If you look at witches and other Wise Women™, spells and curses are important, but also the knowledge about what counters curses, cures diseases, and scares of various creepies and crawlies. Their ability to turn someone into a toad is no more or less important than knowing how to deliver a child.

Granny Weatherwax is a wonderful example of a magical character who doesn't need to, or likes to, use magic very much at all, while still being indisputably magical.

So if you want to make a character who doesn't really cast spells, make the character who knows about magic, and knows the non-magical means of dealing with it.

Anonymouswizard
2017-12-24, 04:34 PM
Yes, a key thing is that, with the exception of a few works most magicians will generally not use magic, even if they're able to solve the situation. But they can still either solve the problem or tell you how to solve it. As has been said Granny Weatherwax is a great example of this (as is Nanny Ogg, who just takes a different nonmagical approach), who uses headology to get people acting as she needed.

Sometimes this can be due to risk. If magic revolves around summoning things then magicians might not want to risk them breaking free, even when the risk is small (even of they have multiple minor spirits already bound). My two favourite systems for Fate act like this, where you do a ritual and summon a spirit, which might be animalistic or might be of equal or greater intelligence than the summoner, and extract services from them (in one the repayment is implied to be the ritual components). A Storm Summoner might have a couple of Wisps following him, and a Voidcaller might have a couple of Lightning Worms ready for an attack, but wouldn't summon a powerful elemental or creature without knowing exactly the task they want.

But it can also be down to just not wanting to rely on magic. A magician who walks hadn't failed as a magician, they're simply one who doesn't want to put in the effort to fly when going to the bakers (or to the next kingdom over). They're a magician who's head isn't in the clouds.

Mechalich
2017-12-24, 09:33 PM
One thing a magic user can do is to be simply knowledgeable. To not so much work magic as to know magic and strange occurrences, and be able to explain it.

Someone mentioned Gandalf before, and how little magic he actually used. But what to me defined Gandalf as a wizard was his knowledge about ancient, mysterious and evil things.


Magic users in society were generally drawn from the elite. Whether that's as shamans in an oral tradition or as Daoist mystics in ancient China, or as landholding nobles and Catholic priests experimenting with alchemy in Medieval Europe. Since in pre-industrial societies the margin between the educated elite and the peasant classes was so impossibly vast, the masses had little understanding of how the elite knew what they knew, which led to supernatural explanations. Since this obviously suited members of the elite classes, the association was maintained over the long term - even to the present in some areas. This sort of association even served to protect the elite - especially the effete literati - from reprisals by the warrior classes in some cases.

In your average medieval fantasy scenario 99+% of the population, including figures who may be rather highly placed, will be illiterate. In such a scenario being able to read, and beyond that having a formal education is a sort of magical power in its own right. The Maesters of ASOIAF are the most prominent contemporary example. Game settings tend to elide this issue by allowing almost everyone to read, despite such a thing being ridiculously unlikely.

Prime32
2017-12-24, 10:04 PM
One thing a magic user can do is to be simply knowledgeable. To not so much work magic as to know magic and strange occurrences, and be able to explain it.

Someone mentioned Gandalf before, and how little magic he actually used. But what to me defined Gandalf as a wizard was his knowledge about ancient, mysterious and evil things.

If you look at witches and other Wise Women™, spells and curses are important, but also the knowledge about what counters curses, cures diseases, and scares of various creepies and crawlies. Their ability to turn someone into a toad is no more or less important than knowing how to deliver a child.

Granny Weatherwax is a wonderful example of a magical character who doesn't need to, or likes to, use magic very much at all, while still being indisputably magical.

So if you want to make a character who doesn't really cast spells, make the character who knows about magic, and knows the non-magical means of dealing with it.Picture a D&D campaign with no spellcasters and no spell-like or supernatural abilities. One of the party members is a Rogue with the Educated feat, and maybe the ACF that trades sneak attack for fighter feats.

When you're wandering through ancient ruins, he can sense the magic of ancient wards and unravel them so that his companions can pass safely. He has knowledge on many arcane topics, including history, mystic languages, and the denizens of other planes. He likely carries a magic wand or staff that's powerless in the hands of the fighter or barbarian, and his understanding of the craft is such that even if handed an elven item that were designed to prevent humans from using it, he can still bend its power to his will. Added to that, he's a mysterious sort who has a habit of stepping out of nowhere or pulling off a disguise to reveal he was watching you all along. He's very perceptive, has a silver tongue, and every time someone's tried to capture him he's disappeared within five minutes.

Such a character is more than entitled to call himself a wizard. It's just that D&D's actual wizard class is operating on a way higher power level.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-24, 10:51 PM
Magic users in society were generally drawn from the elite. Whether that's as shamans in an oral tradition or as Daoist mystics in ancient China, or as landholding nobles and Catholic priests experimenting with alchemy in Medieval Europe. Since in pre-industrial societies the margin between the educated elite and the peasant classes was so impossibly vast, the masses had little understanding of how the elite knew what they knew, which led to supernatural explanations. Since this obviously suited members of the elite classes, the association was maintained over the long term - even to the present in some areas. This sort of association even served to protect the elite - especially the effete literati - from reprisals by the warrior classes in some cases.

In your average medieval fantasy scenario 99+% of the population, including figures who may be rather highly placed, will be illiterate. In such a scenario being able to read, and beyond that having a formal education is a sort of magical power in its own right. The Maesters of ASOIAF are the most prominent contemporary example. Game settings tend to elide this issue by allowing almost everyone to read, despite such a thing being ridiculously unlikely.

While that sort of illiteracy might be factual in any particular fantasy setting, it wouldn't be based on historical precedent.

Turns out that "almost everyone was illiterate before the modern era" is another of those things that "everyone knew" that probably wasn't true. Current estimates place the illiteracy rate of Western Europe at its high point between the Roman Empire and the modern era at no worse than 40%.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-24, 10:53 PM
Picture a D&D campaign with no spellcasters and no spell-like or supernatural abilities. One of the party members is a Rogue with the Educated feat, and maybe the ACF that trades sneak attack for fighter feats.

When you're wandering through ancient ruins, he can sense the magic of ancient wards and unravel them so that his companions can pass safely. He has knowledge on many arcane topics, including history, mystic languages, and the denizens of other planes. He likely carries a magic wand or staff that's powerless in the hands of the fighter or barbarian, and his understanding of the craft is such that even if handed an elven item that were designed to prevent humans from using it, he can still bend its power to his will. Added to that, he's a mysterious sort who has a habit of stepping out of nowhere or pulling off a disguise to reveal he was watching you all along. He's very perceptive, has a silver tongue, and every time someone's tried to capture him he's disappeared within five minutes.

Such a character is more than entitled to call himself a wizard. It's just that D&D's actual wizard class is operating on a way higher power level.

Mind if I quote that post in another thread (casters vs martials)?

Prime32
2017-12-24, 11:08 PM
Mind if I quote that post in another thread (casters vs martials)?Go ahead?

Kitten Champion
2017-12-25, 01:19 AM
I play a lot of Clerics, it's a class I've become comfortable with on both a meta level and in terms of creating convincing characters that I enjoy playing, If you asked me how many miracles I'd need to run such a character I would easily say none. That's a gaming thing, really. While miracles could and probably should be powerfully evocative and awe-inspiring things, in general their ubiquity and sensation of being a tool one shifts about in one's tool belt kind of undermines them from feeling like divine providence bequeathed to a pious soul.

A mundane cleric is obviously a thing, so that's a non-issue. Even if you're premised on being mundane it doesn't mean the miraculous will never happen to you, miracles in general tend to happen to people of religious significance rather than being channeled or even intended in any way. You can also have seemingly supernatural qualities in the right context, like with faith healing or similar phenomenon. For a fictional example, Leliana in Dragon Age has a clerical history, possesses high religious knowledge, and believes herself divinely inspired from the onset, but has no objective magical qualities and mostly stabs people in the back as a Bard.

I honestly don't think a Wizard is much different here, it's just possessing different base knowledge and motivation. Being wise is the premise here, and there's lots of ways you can own that description beyond throwing spells at things.

Cluedrew
2017-12-26, 09:02 AM
Turns out that "almost everyone was illiterate before the modern era" is another of those things that "everyone knew" that probably wasn't true. Current estimates place the illiteracy rate of Western Europe at its high point between the Roman Empire and the modern era at no worse than 40%.Pre- or post-printing press? That is what it probably comes down to, because before the printing press most people couldn't access books to read anyways, so why bother learning? After that, it is my understanding that literacy spread like wildfire after people had things to read.


I play a lot of Clerics, it's a class I've become comfortable with on both a meta level and in terms of creating convincing characters that I enjoy playing, If you asked me how many miracles I'd need to run such a character I would easily say none.It is a little bit funny, clerics are possibly easier to make low/no-magic than wizards, yet I'm actually more comfortable with the convenient, easy to use magic being in the hands of the cleric than the wizard, just because I could see a god bestowing some convenient supernatural ability on their devout followers. Because it is the gift of a god, it will probably work out exactly the way it was supposed to.

I can also see a some non-magical abilities you could give to a non-magical cleric, from church connections to public speaking skills. Well that might depend on the sort of church and the sort of cleric. Religions and the roles within them vary significantly.

Guizonde
2017-12-26, 09:10 AM
Pre- or post-printing press? That is what it probably comes down to, because before the printing press most people couldn't access books to read anyways, so why bother learning? After that, it is my understanding that literacy spread like wildfire after people had things to read.


turns out that the meaning of litteracy changed over the centuries. what we call "illiterate" now means you can't read or write. during medieval times, it meant you couldn't read or write latin. that's how you got litteracy rates of about 5%. most people had a rudimentary writing system just to communicate even before the printing press, but still with nowhere near modern litteracy standards.

as for clerics, i dunno, i've never seen a low-magic cleric in any games i've played. i'm guilty of it too, but clerics tend to be spamming buffs and heal spells all day long indiscriminately. it's not a varied selection of common spells, but i'd be glad to hear stories of low-usage clerics.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-26, 09:15 AM
Pre- or post-printing press? That is what it probably comes down to, because before the printing press most people couldn't access books to read anyways, so why bother learning? After that, it is my understanding that literacy spread like wildfire after people had things to read.


Before the printing press. As in, the Romans and Greeks likely had lower illiteracy rates than 40%, and after the printing press the illiteracy rate was lower than 40%.

There's more to literacy than having mass-produced material to consume, and there are levels of literacy between the modern ideal of being able to pick up any book and read it, or being completely unable to even read your own name or write a basic scribbled note.




turns out that the meaning of litteracy changed over the centuries. what we call "illiterate" now means you can't read or write. during medieval times, it meant you couldn't read or write latin. that's how you got litteracy rates of about 5%. most people had a rudimentary writing system just to communicate even before the printing press, but still with nowhere near modern litteracy standards.


Combine that change in meaning with our usual culprits in warped history (the Victorians' "everyone between the Romans and us lived in mud-caked ignorance" and the Marxists' "the masses have always been abused and oppressed") and once again 1000+ years of history is relegated to the Dung Ages in popular thinking.

Anonymouswizard
2017-12-26, 09:16 AM
A low magic cleric is probably a face first and foremost. They deal with people. Although they'll also be a scholar. Essentially similar to a wizard.

Calthropstu
2017-12-26, 09:32 AM
I once played in a campaign with zero magic. But everyone THOUGHT there was. It turned out the "spell components" were powerful hallucinogens that made everyone convinced that "magic" had taken place.
You basically threw a bunch of magic mushrooms in the air and shouted "fireball" and people were convinced they'd been killed by fireball. Convincing themselves to the point they actually died.
This worked pretty well, with no one realizing this until...
We became trapped in a cave and the wizard "levitated" us out. We spent a week in the cave tripping balls on a "magical adventure" and then the wizard ran out of components.
We figured it out then.

vasilidor
2017-12-26, 03:53 PM
the furthest I have gone is a shadowrun character and a Rifts character who were both sorcerers and had a belief that using magic to kill things was a waste of time and energy: that's what guns were for. they were both as good a shot as I could make them without sacrificing magical capability, specializing in illusions in the case of the shadowrun character and defensive and healing magics in the case of the rifts character.

Jay R
2017-12-26, 03:55 PM
What is magic? Even Galadriel had trouble with that concept, saying, "For this is what your folk would call magic. I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy."

In my opinion, the most magical enchantment in the entire trilogy is that Tom Bombadil and Goldberry can bring a feast out of a small kitchen into a crowded dining room and set the table without ever getting in each other's way.

Mechalich
2017-12-26, 07:34 PM
Before the printing press. As in, the Romans and Greeks likely had lower illiteracy rates than 40%, and after the printing press the illiteracy rate was lower than 40%.

There's more to literacy than having mass-produced material to consume, and there are levels of literacy between the modern ideal of being able to pick up any book and read it, or being completely unable to even read your own name or write a basic scribbled note.


The Greeks and Romans were among the most advanced civilizations in the entire world at the time. The other ones being China and parts of India, and the Greeks and Romans were more egalitarian than those other two. At the same time there were huge chunks of the planet where no one could read at all, because there were no writing systems.

And personally I find statements of high levels of pre-modern literacy somewhat dubious. There are several countries on the planet with a literacy rate below 40% in 2017.

The pre-modern literacy rates among urban-dwelling males were indeed probably higher than typically thought (though this was likely in most cases to be a very limited form of literacy principally involving recognizing common words and simple phrases), but that's a relatively small portion of the overall population. Greece and Rome, because of their city-state structure, had a higher urban percentage than many contemporary or following civilizations, which doubtless pumped up their literacy rate.

CircleOfTheRock
2017-12-26, 08:46 PM
Here’s the actual magic Gandalf uses in roughly twenty years.

Fireworks in the shire.
Tells Bilbo, “Do not take me for conjurer of cheap tricks,” while conjuring a cheap trick.
Loses a staff duel against Saruman.
Says something to a moth, and waits for an Eagle to pick him up.
[In the book] Fights Nazguls at Weathertop.
[In the book] Enchants Butterbur's beer.
[In the book] Adds fire to the horses in the flood at the Ford of Bruinen.
[In the book] Causes his voice to go menacing and harsh, a shadow to pass over the sun, the porch to grow dark, and everyone to tremble in the Council of Elrond, by speaking in the tongue of Mordor.
[In the book] Casts some fireballs against some wolves.
[In the book] Starts a fire on Caradhras pass.
[In the book] Blesses Bill the pony to go home safely.
Lights the top of his staff by magic to lead them through Moria.
[In the book] Uses some kind of magic against the door in the Chamber of Mazarbul.
Wields the flame of Anor against the Balrog, where he dies.
Fights the Balrog all the way up the Endless Stair.
<he is resurrected, but that's not his magic>
Uses magic against Gimli’s, Legolas’s and Aragorn’s weapons.
Defeats Saruman in Theoden’s head.
Breaks Saruman's staff.
Shoots a blinding beam of light against the Nazgul, to save Faramir.
Stands firm against the Nazgul’s black breath (multiple times).
[In the book] Communicates mind to mind with Galadriel, Celeborn, and Elrond
Well, not to start a literature debate, but I think some of that (like wielding the Flame of Anor, or making himself appear threatening) is just "by the power vested in me" stuff; he's one of the Maiar, that's less (in my opinion) him using magic than him being magical in and of himself.

Jay R
2017-12-27, 10:02 AM
Well, not to start a literature debate, but I think some of that (like wielding the Flame of Anor, or making himself appear threatening) is just "by the power vested in me" stuff; he's one of the Maiar, that's less (in my opinion) him using magic than him being magical in and of himself.

Agreed. And you're not going far enough. We have no idea how much comes from his magic ring, Narya, the Ring of Fire. And fireworks is probably external to him.

This all strengthens my point that not much magic is needed to be a "wizard".

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-27, 01:41 PM
Agreed. And you're not going far enough. We have no idea how much comes from his magic ring, Narya, the Ring of Fire. And fireworks is probably external to him.

This all strengthens my point that not much magic is needed to be a "wizard".

I think it's easy to forget from a modern perspective, even for those of us whose formative experiences are from before the ubiquity of the internet, just how powerful knowledge can be. We're like fish in water, most of us never stop to think how wet we are.

https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2015-07-16

"The wizard" or "the shaman" is also often the sage, the scholar, the one with knowledge of this world few others have, let alone knowledge of other worlds. Even post-printing-press, for a long time knowledge was a treasure, not a nearly-free commodity.

Jay R
2017-12-28, 12:46 AM
I think it's easy to forget from a modern perspective, even for those of us whose formative experiences are from before the ubiquity of the internet, just how powerful knowledge can be. We're like fish in water, most of us never stop to think how wet we are.

https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2015-07-16

"The wizard" or "the shaman" is also often the sage, the scholar, the one with knowledge of this world few others have, let alone knowledge of other worlds. Even post-printing-press, for a long time knowledge was a treasure, not a nearly-free commodity.

Absolutely. Two of the "non-magic" but mysterious and rare powers Gandalf showed were:

The ability to read long-forgotten scrolls in Minas Tirith, and
Knowledge of all the words once used as passwords in any language in Middle-Earth.

[And even today, it is very easy to look extremely knowledgeable when your co-workers don't think to use Google.]

Kitten Champion
2017-12-28, 03:25 PM
It is a little bit funny, clerics are possibly easier to make low/no-magic than wizards, yet I'm actually more comfortable with the convenient, easy to use magic being in the hands of the cleric than the wizard, just because I could see a god bestowing some convenient supernatural ability on their devout followers. Because it is the gift of a god, it will probably work out exactly the way it was supposed to.

I liken divine power to lightning. It's a flash of sheer, unadulterated, teeth-shattering power which can be harnessed for bending the continuity of the universe in some fashion but can also burn you to ashes if mishandled in the least. That the ones focusing that power either need a degree of enlightenment that gives them some insight into the workings of reality liken to gods, or surrender themselves into pure instrumentality of a higher being.

I guess I take issue with the kind of setting where it's taken for granted that the local priest/priestess can do the miraculous at command without consequence. The sorts of stories which involve the intervention of deities into our world are soaked in blood, suffering, and the sublime -- the ones who get power from these exchanges rarely live long happy lives, and mostly don't do mundane tasks with them.

Though to me, the only magical archetype which should have cheap and easy power is the Warlock. You get the power, that's the deal, and then comes the cost... whether it was worth it is something you can stay up late thinking about.


A low magic cleric is probably a face first and foremost. They deal with people. Although they'll also be a scholar. Essentially similar to a wizard.

You can justify a cleric in most positions and roles. If we're talking D&D as seems to be the case, simply doing the Acolyte Background in 5e or something similar and applying it to a non-cleric class character can give you the flavour of that cleric experience with your character without necessarily any of the magical mechanics. I've done it before, which is why when asked myself whether I could do the same with a wizard, I believe I easily can.

CircleOfTheRock
2017-12-28, 10:34 PM
You can justify a cleric in most positions and roles. If we're talking D&D as seems to be the case, simply doing the Acolyte Background in 5e or something similar and applying it to a non-cleric class character can give you the flavour of that cleric experience with your character without necessarily any of the magical mechanics. I've done it before, which is why when asked myself whether I could do the same with a wizard, I believe I easily can.
You can also look at the NPC Acolyte, in the back of 5e's MM. They have bless, thaumaturgy, and sanctuary, off the top of my head, which gives them the ability to make minor miracles, and also to exhibit some god-bestowed-like powers.

vasilidor
2017-12-29, 12:39 AM
one definition of magic that I like personally is "any willful manipulation of energy, regardless of actual method." by that definition flipping on a light in your house is an act of magic, and there are times that I find it amazing that we are capable of understanding what can be done with fine manipulations of electricity, let alone actually pull it off. In ages past that deemed wizards were simply the most educated in there region. So one could take a modern scientist (as has been suggested before) drop him into a primitive society and watch them react in shock and awe to the new wizard.

Cluedrew
2017-12-29, 07:46 AM
I guess I take issue with the kind of setting where it's taken for granted that the local priest/priestess can do the miraculous at command without consequence.In high magic, or to be slightly tongue in cheek magical, setting that is the expectation. And you know for the "superhero fantasy" settings it probably fits. Still I could see a system where a pious character might have a miracle happen around them, might have one or two in a longer campaign, work. First because if the chance of miracle is acknowledged in setting it could create some useful dynamics. Second because I think miracles in this context would probably be campaign altering hunks of awesome.

And of course the cleric is still a person with set of skills to get things done, so they don't need that much extra power to get by in lower powered settings.


"any willful manipulation of energy, regardless of actual method."The "most correct" definition I got from a university professor who studies this is "the manipulation of occult forces towards a particular goal", which except for focusing on the occult is pretty much the same thing. For the record, the electromagnetic force is an occult force so everything you said still applies. Although I think the modern scientist might actually have trouble getting much done with a medieval tool set, unless they are also a survivalist or something.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-29, 10:49 AM
For the record, the electromagnetic force is an occult force so everything you said still applies.


I'm guessing there's some definition of "occult" that can be stretched to make that fit? :smallconfused:

vasilidor
2017-12-29, 01:07 PM
I think the reason it qualifies is because a lot of old cults actually made use of it, in example the Baghdad batteries.

Cluedrew
2017-12-29, 01:44 PM
To Max_Killjoy: Partly what vasilidor said, it was notice and grouped with "other supernatural" forces back in the day. The other side of this is that modern definitions of occult (and other words like magic) have actually been changed to exclude things that turned out to be supported by science. I think it is party "people in the past didn't know anything" and party our modern imagery has changed so much from what people back then saw it as. So if by "some definition" you mean a slightly older and historically grounded one, yes. And it doesn't have to be stretched far to include it.

(I have actually studied the history of magic a little so I come at a lot of these things from a slightly more historical perspective than most.)

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-29, 02:21 PM
To Max_Killjoy: Partly what vasilidor said, it was notice and grouped with "other supernatural" forces back in the day. The other side of this is that modern definitions of occult (and other words like magic) have actually been changed to exclude things that turned out to be supported by science. I think it is party "people in the past didn't know anything" and party our modern imagery has changed so much from what people back then saw it as. So if by "some definition" you mean a slightly older and historically grounded one, yes. And it doesn't have to be stretched far to include it.

(I have actually studied the history of magic a little so I come at a lot of these things from a slightly more historical perspective than most.)

That's actually far more reasonable than some assertions along those lines that I've run into in the past. (See, postmodernist garbage that "science is just another way of looking at the world, it's not any more accurate"... usually said via a medium such as printed books, radio, TV, or the internet...)

Knaight
2017-12-29, 02:34 PM
To Max_Killjoy: Partly what vasilidor said, it was notice and grouped with "other supernatural" forces back in the day. The other side of this is that modern definitions of occult (and other words like magic) have actually been changed to exclude things that turned out to be supported by science.

Part of it was grouped with other supernatural forces. Light wasn't generally classified as an occult phenomenon, those weird rocks that repelled each other or attracted each other depending on facing, or any sort of weird specific setup that produced a noticeable electric current or electric sparks (e.g. various early and primitive batteries) absolutely were occult.

Anonymouswizard
2017-12-29, 08:02 PM
You can justify a cleric in most positions and roles. If we're talking D&D as seems to be the case, simply doing the Acolyte Background in 5e or something similar and applying it to a non-cleric class character can give you the flavour of that cleric experience with your character without necessarily any of the magical mechanics. I've done it before, which is why when asked myself whether I could do the same with a wizard, I believe I easily can.

Yeah, I suppose my view is tainted due to mostly being based on Anglican vicars, so I tend to assume priests will either be faces (vicars) or scholars (monks). But yeah, a no-magic priest is still a priest in all the social and religious senses, and the lack of powers (or it being limited to a couple of divine gifts, I once tried to play an Anglican vicar who had supernatural strength and visions of the future).

To me divine intervention should be limited to either the occasional miracle, powers gifted at birth or via items, or just the PCs being in the right place at the right time (I do like 'the PCs don't get miraculous help, they are the miraculous help'). A priest very rarely has this, their deity might answer their prayers but will tend to do so indirectly, helping with a plague by causing a river to overflow so a skilled and kindly doctor has to pass through the town. If a priest wants magic they can learn the wizard stuff.

The main problem for me is that if there isn't the magic angle I'll tend to not call a nonmagical wizard a wizard (I would call them a magician, and I would also call a magic-using wizard a magician). Scholar or vagabond would cover most of them, with con-artist or entertainer being fine for most of the rest. In a setting with magic I might call a scholar who studies magic but can't use it a wizard, but I'd more likely just say 'scholar of magic'.

I like nonmagical scholar characters, they are a nice change to the 'smart people use magic' stereotype I've seen some player have.

Cluedrew
2017-12-30, 09:35 PM
To Knaight: Yeah, I know more than the average person, probably more than the average geek even, on the historical side but I am still not an expert. Still that matches I will know. I would also like to through out that a lot of the lines we think of either didn't exist or were drawn very differently because... well they didn't know enough to draw the lines as we do.

To Anonymouswizard: Or in Sci-Fi they are gadgeteers.

Anonymouswizard
2017-12-30, 11:16 PM
To Anonymouswizard: Or in Sci-Fi they are gadgeteers.

I tend to seperate engineers from magicians from scholars. Gadgeteers, and their fantasy cousins Artificers, would be in the engineer category.

In a sense, if there's no such thing as a spell, and instead items are used, I consider the character to not be a magician. The SF equivalent to the magician is the psychic, the engineer or technician or gadgeteer makes or improves items that anybody can use (whether or not they can use them effectively is another matter). Or the magician creates new effects, the engineer works with existing effects unless they have a lot of time available. Note that one archetype appears more in fantasy and the other appears more in science fiction.

But again, this is a personal thing.

Knaight
2017-12-31, 07:24 AM
To Knaight: Yeah, I know more than the average person, probably more than the average geek even, on the historical side but I am still not an expert. Still that matches I will know. I would also like to through out that a lot of the lines we think of either didn't exist or were drawn very differently because... well they didn't know enough to draw the lines as we do.

Absolutely. Figuring out the basics of how magnetism and electricity worked didn't happen until the 1700's. That they were linked wasn't picked up until the 1800's, and it took decades after that to figure out that light was electromagnetic radiation. The baseline for a long time was that various specific objects did specific weird things, and that got lumped into the occult.

Cluedrew
2017-12-31, 07:51 AM
To Anonymouswizard: I agree with that, my point is that intelligent characters tend towards archetypes that have "special powers" that require intelligence (or are seen as coming from intelligence). At least in these types of game stories, someone who uses intelligence straight or as a force multiplier on a different skill set seem less common.

digiman619
2017-12-31, 11:00 AM
I'm guessing there's some definition of "occult" that can be stretched to make that fit? :smallconfused:

Dictionary.com also defines it as "not apparent on mere inspection but discoverable by experimentation." and "of a nature not understood, as physical qualities." (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/occult?s=t)

vasilidor
2017-12-31, 12:32 PM
other things that were considered occult lore included the particulars of human perception. most people still do not understand how this works and the best experts on the subject are mostly stage magicians. It is there understanding of how your perception works that permit them to do there stage tricks.

ericgrau
2017-12-31, 12:48 PM
Basic utility now and then is your bare minimum while still being useful. Little or no combat magic.

It's the 3.5 equivalent of casting a few level 1 spells a week. Maybe level 2 eventually. Utility spells are hard to use at all, so you'd have to have a high number of spells known, just a low total number of spells.

I've seen something like this done in Lone Wolf with willpower points. The spells were also super versatile and general in their application. Still somewhat powerful though not nearly D&D level. You could do something similar but even weaker. Or instead of general purpose spells just give out a large number of clearly defined weak spells. Willpower was also used for the rough equivalent of a will save or battles of the mind, so if you burnt too many you left your mind vulnerable.

So something simple to implement just as an example: You get a dozen or so WP. They heal 1 per day. Rare items might heal 1 more. You may cast any 3.5 sor/wiz cantrip using 1 WP. But if you go nova you'll have a sucky will save. After a few levels you get 1st, 2nd and at high level 3rd level spells. 2nd and 3rd level spells cost 2 WP each. Btw in terms of utility 3.5 spells have a big jump at level 2 instead of level 3 as it is with combat spells, so it works out. Since you know so many different spells and get to cast so few, utility spells to solve oddball situations are your best bet. Like mage hand, unseen servant, Tenser's floating disk and spider climb. The combat spells might even be banned for flavor and to avoid giving players traps. Of course in your gaming system you'll make up your own spells and tweak the points a bit. But you get the idea.

Healing could be handled via potions & magical medicines, basically alchemy and/or (magic) herbalism. If not rest and mundane means most of the time.

S@tanicoaldo
2018-01-01, 01:12 PM
Just look at Merlin, he may be the gratest wizard of history and very rarely he used magic.

Great wizards don't do magic willy nilly, they do most things in a mundane way, they are wise and are able to see beyond and they know that using magic is not free it always has consequences.