How Would YOU Build a Narrative Magic System in 5E?

[PrinceOfMadness]

Discussion inspired by this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?605145-Contention-D-amp-D-Magic-System-doesn-t-fit).

I've seen a lot of discussion from users on various forums who have expressed dissatisfaction with 5E magic design (and know more than a few personally). The two main points of contention I've been exposed to are the heavy restrictions on what spellcasting can do, and the clunky nature of Vancian casting.

For magic use to 'fit in' with the rest of D&D design, it would need to follow the following formula:

Player declares intent.
GM establishes difficulty.
Player expends appropriate at-will AND/OR X/short rest AND/OR Y/long rest resources.
Attack, saving throw, and/or damage dice are rolled.
GM describes the outcome.

The current magic system breaks from this in two big ways, I think. First, where most of the game requires a player to describe their intent ("I want to climb this wall", "I want to attack this orc with my sword"), magic more often has a player describing their effect ("I cast Magic Missile"). The GM only needs to provide the player with a success/failure response, because the outcome is already documented. There are no 'degrees of success' - in the example of climbing a wall, there's no chance of slipping, making noise that might alert enemies, disturbing a roc's nest...only success or failure. There's very little room for surprise or for natural storytelling.

Secondly, most non-spellcaster classes measure their class features in terms of 'how many times can I do this per short/long rest', where the answer is typically between 1 and 3 or drawn from a single large pool of Ki, Lay on Hands, or similar. While casters technically meet this definition, Vancian casting means their 'large pool' of spells is one that consists of several smaller pools, a mechanic that is counter-intuitive to other 5E mechanics.

Now, I've had several thoughts for how such a system could be implemented. My first thought was a Build-A-Spell workshop wherein all spellcasters use a modified Spell Point system wherein they can take on effects to spells they create (similarly to Metamagic) for additional spell points (+range, +AoE, +damage, etc). Very quickly, however, I realized that this becomes pretty cumbersome and hard to balance...and doesn't really solve for the problems of making magic work similarly to the rest of the game.

My second thought was for leaving the spell system in place as it is now, but allow for casters to voluntarily take levels of exhaustion/expend Hit Dice to cast a 'custom' spell for when things get rough, with an Arcana/Religion/Nature/Performance DC appropriate for the scale of the effect set by the DM. This allows casters a bit of flexibility, but again...doesn't really solve for the core problems.

My third thought was for adapting spellcasting to work in a fashion similarly to the Warlock's invocations, wherein the spellcaster has access to a number of 'Signature Spells': XX that they can cast 'at will', YY that they can cast 1/short rest, and ZZ that they can cast 1/long rest. These spells can be from the book or 'brewed with the player to be thematic for their character. This ends up being a fairly heavy nerf to spellcasters, and I'm not positive it really solves the problem of making magic more flexible, but it seems to hit closer than my other thoughts.

In the end, I'm not really happy with any of my suggestions above, so I'd like to ask the Playground - what are your thoughts? How would you change the suggestions above, or what would you do entirely differently to make magic less restrictive, more narrative, and more in line with the rest of the game's mechanics?

[Garfunion]

I’m not sure what you’re asking for.

“ I conjure a ball of fire in my hand and throw it at the orc.”—— I cast firebolt

Wouldn’t the narrative aspect of the game be more in the hands of the player and DM? I don’t think you need a new mechanic system to to role-play the casting of a spell.

Or are you looking for more of a battle master spell casting system. Where the spellcaster cast a cantrip and then applies additional affects to it.

[Arkhios]

The narrative of magic use is largely dependent on the players' and DM's own efforts in describing what they're doing.

I don't think there's a need to create a mechanic specifically to do this.

I do however think that there could be more concrete examples for (old and new) players and DM's to draw inspiration from whenever needed.

[Slipperychicken]

Just play a different game. Or write a new one.

You're falling into the classic decades-old trap of "try to butcher $Current_Edition$ dnd into being the system I actually want to play", when the actual solution is to literally read, play, and/or write a different game entirely.

If you write a new game, then nothing has to "fit in" to dnd's paradigm, and you'll save yourself countless hours of learning and trying to shoehorn things into it.

[Man_Over_Game]

My suggestion is to develop a system that allows you to use skills. All skills. Like allow a high Athletics check to throw a boulder that mimics Catapult. Determine specific values per DC, utilize a Roll X, Keep Lowest system to ensure scaling across all levels

Then just make spells scripted to use those same effects but take out any risk.

So you can turn invisible with a good Stealth roll, or you can cut out the skill roll by spending a magic resource. Skills are cheap and risky, spells are expensive and consistent.

Spells would have the added benefit of applying an effect normally out of your reach. A Wizard, who has a low Stealth Skill, can make themselves invisible like a Rogue, but can also make someone ELSE invisible, which a Rogue can't.


Alternatively, a build-a-spell system like you mentioned could work, as long as you focus it around numbers. Conditions, number of targets hit, durations, damage, these are all things that can be quantified. Just make sure it's a system that requires players to do it out of the game. No improv casting here.

[firelistener]

Just play a different game. Or write a new one.

You're falling into the classic decades-old trap of "try to butcher $Current_Edition$ dnd into being the system I actually want to play", when the actual solution is to literally read, play, and/or write a different game entirely.

If you write a new game, then nothing has to "fit in" to dnd's paradigm, and you'll save yourself countless hours of learning and trying to shoehorn things into it.

I'll second this. Spellcasting is already at its most flexible in 5e, with how prepping spells works, so I don't think trying to heavily redesign it or splice in some new rules really helps players. The list of defined spells is also much less work for DMs, so I'd be against something in my own games that introduces new scenarios where I have to arbitrate outcome based on player intent.

Also, I agree with the idea that magic not being magical or mysterious enough is almost always just a role-playing problem. A party's wizard throws a fireball, and most barbarian players won't have their character react at all because they assume magic is commonplace in the setting. Caster players, likewise, hardly ever bother with describing components or coming up with their own in-character verbal and somatic components like chanting and hand-waving.

If you want magic to be more magical, maybe have a spell scroll reward without inscribed verbal components. You can have a quest where a wizard needs to find the author and learn the magical chant to fully learn the spell.

[Kane0]

I'd be interested in seeing how a VtM Discipline system would work brought into 5e.

It's been a while since i've played but perhaps something like you gain proficiency in spell schools, which unlock more powerful options as prof bonus increases or you get something akin to expertise. When you want to use magic from a spell school you roll a check or save in order to avoid a level of exhaustion or some other limited resource expenditure. Higher strength uses have a tougher check/save to beat.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Expand cantrips but keep them all about the same power as now and balance them. These will work as normal.

Give each caster MP, PP, or Slots.

The player says how they want to modify their Cantrip, pays what they think the effect is worth, then the DM describes what happens.

As the game goes on the player will be able to fine tune their expenditure.

Spells will never fizzle out, they just may not be as big or last as long as you think.

Jumjum the wizard has firebolt and 15 MP. Jumjum says "I want to make firebolt explode and hit every creature within 20' of the target in a massive fireball. I'm adding 2 MP to the firebolt".

The DM describes that the firebolt goes to the target and explodes but only hits the initial target and creatures within 5' of it. With a bit more power you feel as if you could get it to explode better.

[Garfunion]

Expand cantrips but keep them all about the same power as now and balance them. These will work as normal.

Give each caster MP, PP, or Slots.

The player says how they want to modify their Cantrip, pays what they think the effect is worth, then the DM describes what happens.

As the game goes on the player will be able to fine tune their expenditure.

Spells will never fizzle out, they just may not be as big or last as long as you think.

Jumjum the wizard has firebolt and 15 MP. Jumjum says "I want to make firebolt explode and hit every creature within 20' of the target in a massive fireball. I'm adding 2 MP to the firebolt".

The DM describes that the firebolt goes to the target and explodes but only hits the initial target and creatures within 5' of it. With a bit more power you feel as if you could get it to explode better.
This kind of resembles 4E psionic. You have a bunch of at-will powers which you can spend power points on to increase their effectiveness.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

This kind of resembles 4E psionic. You have a bunch of at-will powers which you can spend power points on to increase their effectiveness.

Yup.

Also 3e Magic of Incarnum and the Binder.

My favorite WotC magic systems.


Edit: The magic system I proposed would need a chapter dedicated to explaining to DMs and Players what one should somewhat expect. Don't expect 1 MP to give you Meteor Swarm.

[TripleD]

I'll second this.

I’ll third it. There are already more RPG systems out there than you could read in a lifetime; I’m certain there is one that fits the style OP is going for.

Plus, why not go the other way? There are RPG systems that have fighters deal automatic damage or have rogues automatically pick locks, no roll require. Maybe every class should get a “this is my thing, so it just works” button.

[Theodoxus]

snip

Why not all three? That's what I did for the sorcerer. Took away their spells, gave them spellfire, doubling their sorc points and refreshing on a short rest, metamagic manipulates spellfire into blasts, lines, mutlitarget - can increase the damage die (d6 to d12) or increase the number of dice rolled... makes a great 'all purpose' damaging or healing "spell". Then, I pulled nearly every attack power from 4E sorcerer and converted it into a spell like ability called an Incantation. I grant 1 incantation per level, to a max of 20. Like spells, sorcs can swap one out for another every level. Their capstone is now they can swap out all 20 incantations after a long rest.


Just play a different game. Or write a new one.

You're falling into the classic decades-old trap of "try to butcher $Current_Edition$ dnd into being the system I actually want to play", when the actual solution is to literally read, play, and/or write a different game entirely.

If you write a new game, then nothing has to "fit in" to dnd's paradigm, and you'll save yourself countless hours of learning and trying to shoehorn things into it.

He might have a player like I do that refuses to play anything that's not labeled "D&D". Even now, after a year and some playing in a heavily modified 4E centric 5th Edition game, he whines about wanting to go back to "real" D&D. I'd love to throw out the BS I have to still deal with because WotC... but he's my best friend - so I coddle him... On top of that, writing isn't all that easy for a lot of folks. Far easier to coax something out of an existing set (or multiple sets) of similar rules than to reinvent the d20 yet again (or go way out there and try to incorporate a d24 into your system...


My suggestion is to develop a system that allows you to use skills. All skills. Like allow a high Athletics check to throw a boulder that mimics Catapult. Determine specific values per DC, utilize a Roll X, Keep Lowest system to ensure scaling across all levels

Then just make spells scripted to use those same effects but take out any risk.

So you can turn invisible with a good Stealth roll, or you can cut out the skill roll by spending a magic resource. Skills are cheap and risky, spells are expensive and consistent.

Spells would have the added benefit of applying an effect normally out of your reach. A Wizard, who has a low Stealth Skill, can make themselves invisible like a Rogue, but can also make someone ELSE invisible, which a Rogue can't.


I use Skill Powers from 4th Edition as well. This would be a pretty nifty expansion on that.


I'd be interested in seeing how a VtM Discipline system would work brought into 5e.

It's been a while since i've played but perhaps something like you gain proficiency in spell schools, which unlock more powerful options as prof bonus increases or you get something akin to expertise. When you want to use magic from a spell school you roll a check or save in order to avoid a level of exhaustion or some other limited resource expenditure. Higher strength uses have a tougher check/save to beat.

I thought about this as well. If you used a DC system, maybe 20+spell level, and you had a cumulative Arcana check. Casting Magic Missile would require a DC 21 check. If you made it in the first round, you cast the spell; if you rolled a 15 instead, you'd hold it over to the next round. Rolling Arcana again, if you got 6+ you'd build enough "magic reserve" to cast the spell.

Now, Figure out how quickly you want to cast things. If it's purely "free" magic with no spell slots, you'd probably want a high baseline. If it's just a check to see if you succeed or not, then 10+spell level would be sufficient.

Of course, if you're hit before you cast the spell, something fun should happen - perhaps if you're within 5 points of success, maybe roll on the Wild Magic chart? Magic should have a cost, after all :smallbiggrin:

[Kane0]

Yup.

Also 3e Magic of Incarnum and the Binder.

My favorite WotC magic systems.


And they worked well, it would be worth doing that again.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

And they worked well, it would be worth doing that again.

Oh yeah, definitely.

With the 5e core system in place, 4e NADs as saving throws, and building the core magic and combat system around the ideas of 4e Psionics, Incarnum, and Binders... I could see a very fun system in play.

[ProsecutorGodot]

From our perspective as players, magic is gamified more than almost anything else but nothing in the fiction I know of suggests that spellcasters in the world must understand and abide by all of those same restrictions at all times.

To borrow Jumjum the Wizard as an example from SpawnOfMorbo, I personally didn't see much difference between "I want my firebolt to split into 3 rays and attack separately, I'll spend 2MP" and "I use a second level spell slot to cast Scorching Ray".

But I gave it some more thought and I did see one thing that I found myself getting stuck on that I think might be one of the general sticking points... Spells kind of seem too perfect. Fireball is always a third level spell, that's what it is, a perfectly cast fireball will be the same between most casters. Why was there never any experimentation with an efficient fireball that perhaps had a smaller radius and/or damage but was cheaper to cast, or one that didn't burn as hot but covered an excessive amount of area. Sure, some of those variant spells do exist in a way (delayed blast fireball) but there are just so many gaps.

You know I didn't really know I had a problem with this until I wandered in here, I was pretty content with my "these are the spells that exist" mentality before. Now my mind is opened and my good times are tainted forever.

I suppose I'd throw my hat in with what SpawnOfMorbo has suggested, I like the idea of a foundation of spells that can be shaped in many many ways for a desired effects. Making it so modular also eliminates the risk of gaps where spells with certain effects would logically exist but currently just... don't. My only worry in such a system is that without explicit costs tied to these variables (which could create its own issues, potentially even the same ones) that it could spark a lot of interpersonal conflict between those who think 2MP is enough for a 10ft explosion radius and those who really believe that it should be 4MP.

[Dr. Cliché]

Well, from a narrative perspective, three things tend to be important for a magic system:

1) Costs. Basically, the reasons why magic can't work as a reliable solution to every problem. This is something the D&D magic system is severely lacking. Very few spells have meaningful costs, with most having no cost at all and others threatening only a temporary wallet puncture. And when I say 'cost', I'm absolutely not referring to spell slots. Because those are arbitrary things that have no bearing on the character and only exist to facilitate the magic system. A cost would be something like:
- HP damage to caster.
- Loss of HD.
- Reduced Ability Score(s).
- Levels of Exhaustion.
etc.

Basically, anything that impacts them beyond their ability to cast spells. Again, this is a key narrative tool because there should be a legitimate reason why magic isn't just used to solve every problem ever.


2)Risks. Simply, what risks does a caster face when using magic. These are obviously appropriate to the magic system that uses them. For example:
- A system where people bargain with fey or devils for power could face numerous dangers if they fail to word their requests/contracts correctly.
- Any summoning ability could risk those summoned creatures becoming hostile to the summoner.
- Any powers/systems involving transformation could risk such transformations becoming permanent or unstable, or in messier consequences if size-changing is involved.

Risks can either go alongside costs or potentially even replace them to a large extent.

Unfortunately (at least from a narrative perspective), risks are another area where the D&D magic system is lacking. Very few spells have any meaningful risk to them (which isn't necessarily a problem - not all magic systems need to be risky, after all - but it's certainly not ideal in a system that already lacks meaningful costs for using magic). What's more, the distinction between the spells that incur risk and the spells that don't can be somewhat hard to fathom. The 'Conjure' spells are particularly bad for this, with some being able to call Fey and Elementals perfectly safely and others causing summoned creatures to turn against the caster if his concentration is ever broken.

Note: I'm not counting AoE spells as being risky. Yes, you can technically hit yourself or your companions with them, but since you can target them with pinpoint accuracy you've got no one to blame but yourself if you do that.


3) Limits. What can't magic do? What are the fundamental rules that even magic can never break? This is important partially for the above but also because it helps to define both magic and the universe. It's another thing that D&D magic struggles with because, taken as a whole, there's very little that it can't do. You could perhaps try to make an argument for class identity (e.g. arcane casters can't usually heal), but there are so many exception to this and ways for one class to pinch class-defining spells/abilities from another class that this simply doesn't function as any sort of defining feature.

Note: Just to be clear, limits is in reference to the magic system as a whole. This isn't referring to the limits of a particular spell or a low-level caster. The question is more along the lines of 'what could a mage not do even if he attained the highest rank of magical knowledge and power?'


So, from a purely narrative perspective, D&D's magic system falls rather flat. However, D&D is primarily a game rather than a book (and one based heavily around combat), so one also has to take into account the fact that players typically don't want to feel like they're being punished for using their core abilities. Especially since they're typically going to be fighting far more often than the characters in most stories. I think this is where things get difficult because I think it's hard to find a balance between a magic system that's too easy to use a magic system that's too costly to use (especially with the frequency of D&D encounters).

[Theodoxus]

So, from a purely narrative perspective, D&D's magic system falls rather flat. However, D&D is primarily a game rather than a book (and one based heavily around combat), so one also has to take into account the fact that players typically don't want to feel like they're being punished for using their core abilities. Especially since they're typically going to be fighting far more often than the characters in most stories. I think this is where things get difficult because I think it's hard to find a balance between a magic system that's too easy to use a magic system that's too costly to use (especially with the frequency of D&D encounters).

This is an excellent point. Looking back up through history of magic in D&D as a whole, it's very obvious that each iteration is removing a restriction; a regulation, if you will, on how magic works. In the earliest days, everything was pure Vancian. No notion of "spontaneous". You had to take the time to meticulously memorize your spells into specific slots. If you only memorized 2 magic missiles, and you used both in one combat, you didn't get any more - and if you needed a sleep spell instead, you were SOL until you could rest and rememorize your spells.

New systems didn't really address that underlying issue, just created more spells... It wasn't until 3rd Edition came along that they truly began expanding - or more precisely - began removing regulations on magic. First, the sorcerer, a true spontaneous caster. It was weaker than a wizard, in that it took an extra level to get to the next spell level - a wizard is casting fireball a level before the sorcerer - but in exchange for that, the sorcerer received more "spell slots" and could fill them on the fly. This was a breakthrough of epic proportions and blew a lot of us away when we first encountered it. From this, tons of alternate casting classes sprang up (like the Invoker and Binder spoken of up thread).

4th Edition shattered the notion of magic all together (much to the displeasure of the general gaming population). "Spells" were divided into 4 distinct groups: Controller, Defender, Leader and Striker and power types: Arcane, Martial, Primal and Psionic. Then classes were just a mashup of Group and Power. An Arcane Defender played essentially no differently than a Martial Defender; just had different fluff. And this created a massive backlash for going back to "yesteryear".

5th Edition's magic system harkens back to the feel of 3rd Edition (without a true Vancian system, that's as far back as it'll go) but breaks even more regulations, not only granting every class spontaneous casting, but having 5 full casters follow the exact same casting structure (spell slots) with Warlock using a boosted half caster progression and "specialized" high end spell choices.

This uncoupling of regulations hasn't just affected magic though, it's a general premise for every subsystem in D&D. 1st Edition didn't have skills. 2nd Edition came up with Proficiencies which were pretty basic and fairly regulated. 3rd Edition expanded on the notion, creating true skills, which haven't changed much since then outside of how to determine their value.

Martial combat has changed over time nearly as much as the magic system. While weapon damage types and die values haven't changed (outside of the original rules where everything was a d6), how martials used them have; number of attacks, bonus to hit and damage, weapon specialization and traits have evolved edition to edition. Anyone remember when PF came out with a feat that let martials use their Dex to make attacks and damage with specific weapons? Mind blowing at the time. A feat tax for every rogue, for sure. 5E comes along and makes it a weapon trait!

Going forward, I can only imagine more uncoupling. We have seen it with the Hexblade (how does one use their force of personality to swing a greatsword or maul, anyway?) I don't know if it'll be 6th Edition or 10th Edition, but at some point, I can only imagine if the trend continues, we'll have 1 stat driving everything, since you can use it to attack and defend; a weapon deals whatever die you want it to, and can trigger any special effect from sneak attack to smiting or whatever. Spells will simply be willed into existence, maybe using some kind of matrix ala White Wolf, but probably closer to "pick a die type, pick a damage type, pick a rider", it costs you X segments to cast that effect. Yes, I predict combat will go back to segments, to facilitate even more granular combat. Oxymoronic to the general uncoupling principal, yes, but it's the best way to make sure everyone can do exactly what they want, in a fair and orderly fashion.

[Leith]

Well, from a narrative perspective, three things tend to be important for a magic system:

1) Costs. Basically, the reasons why magic can't work as a reliable solution to every problem. This is something the D&D magic system is severely lacking. Very few spells have meaningful costs, with most having no cost at all and others threatening only a temporary wallet puncture. And when I say 'cost', I'm absolutely not referring to spell slots. Because those are arbitrary things that have no bearing on the character and only exist to facilitate the magic system. A cost would be something like:
- HP damage to caster.
- Loss of HD.
- Reduced Ability Score(s).
- Levels of Exhaustion.
etc.

Basically, anything that impacts them beyond their ability to cast spells. Again, this is a key narrative tool because there should be a legitimate reason why magic isn't just used to solve every problem ever.


2)Risks. Simply, what risks does a caster face when using magic. These are obviously appropriate to the magic system that uses them. For example:
- A system where people bargain with fey or devils for power could face numerous dangers if they fail to word their requests/contracts correctly.
- Any summoning ability could risk those summoned creatures becoming hostile to the summoner.
- Any powers/systems involving transformation could risk such transformations becoming permanent or unstable, or in messier consequences if size-changing is involved.

Risks can either go alongside costs or potentially even replace them to a large extent.

Unfortunately (at least from a narrative perspective), risks are another area where the D&D magic system is lacking. Very few spells have any meaningful risk to them (which isn't necessarily a problem - not all magic systems need to be risky, after all - but it's certainly not ideal in a system that already lacks meaningful costs for using magic). What's more, the distinction between the spells that incur risk and the spells that don't can be somewhat hard to fathom. The 'Conjure' spells are particularly bad for this, with some being able to call Fey and Elementals perfectly safely and others causing summoned creatures to turn against the caster if his concentration is ever broken.

Note: I'm not counting AoE spells as being risky. Yes, you can technically hit yourself or your companions with them, but since you can target them with pinpoint accuracy you've got no one to blame but yourself if you do that.


3) Limits. What can't magic do? What are the fundamental rules that even magic can never break? This is important partially for the above but also because it helps to define both magic and the universe. It's another thing that D&D magic struggles with because, taken as a whole, there's very little that it can't do. You could perhaps try to make an argument for class identity (e.g. arcane casters can't usually heal), but there are so many exception to this and ways for one class to pinch class-defining spells/abilities from another class that this simply doesn't function as any sort of defining feature.

Note: Just to be clear, limits is in reference to the magic system as a whole. This isn't referring to the limits of a particular spell or a low-level caster. The question is more along the lines of 'what could a mage not do even if he attained the highest rank of magical knowledge and power?'


So, from a purely narrative perspective, D&D's magic system falls rather flat. However, D&D is primarily a game rather than a book (and one based heavily around combat), so one also has to take into account the fact that players typically don't want to feel like they're being punished for using their core abilities. Especially since they're typically going to be fighting far more often than the characters in most stories. I think this is where things get difficult because I think it's hard to find a balance between a magic system that's too easy to use a magic system that's too costly to use (especially with the frequency of D&D encounters).


All three of those is just "limits." They're also arbitrarily improtant. What if magic doesn't cost anything? Then it can be used to solve every problem. So what? What if magic has no risks? Then you could throw it around willy nilly and there would be no consiquences beyond the usual ones for whatever it was you was doin. Again, so what? The lack of limitations may not be the flavor you wanted but it is still flavour. Like vanilla.

4e brought magic in line with the rest of the game and people hated it. The problem with magic being as abstract and free form as anything else is that magic can hypothetically do anything, so it's hard to adjudicate an open system like that. Hence my reference to 4e where they didn't bother.
Magic needs rules and if you don't like the ones you got you may have to overhaul the whole set up. Or just steal from other games like 13th age, warhammer rpg, WoD or some of the other systems people have mentioned. Which one very much depends on what you need out of it.

[MirrorDarkly]

To me having magic work in a way that no way resembles skills is a feature not a bug.

The biggest problem I have with narrative systems is that everything feels like the same with a different coat of paint applied.

So I don't think D&D magic needs to be fixed but if I did want to make it more flexible or player input driven I would not look to skills or other class abilities as the starting point.

[Dr. Cliché]

All three of those is just "limits."

Costs and risks are not the same as limits.

You could, for example, make every spell in the PHB without a costly material component cost 5gp per casting.

You have not changed the limits of magic - it can still heal, it can still teleport, it can still resurrect people etc., but you have tweaked the cost.

If you are still confused, feel free to consult a dictionary.



What if magic doesn't cost anything? Then it can be used to solve every problem. So what?

Then your setting has to reflect the complete and total dominance of magic. Also, you have to ask yourself why there are even conflicts if magic can be used for everything and can solve every problem at no cost.



What if magic has no risks? Then you could throw it around willy nilly and there would be no consiquences beyond the usual ones for whatever it was you was doin. Again, so what?

Then your setting has to reflect the complete and total dominance of magic. Also, you have to ask yourself why there are even conflicts if magic can be used for everything and can solve every problem at no cost or risk.



The lack of limitations may not be the flavor you wanted but it is still flavour. Like vanilla.


No, a lack of limitations is the equivalent of being unable to decide on a flavour and so mashing every available flavour together into an amorphous blob.



4e brought magic in line with the rest of the game and people hated it.

No, 4e brought magic into line with a completely different game.

Also, from a narrative perspective, it was still terrible and still lacking in costs and risks. It was certainly more limited but not in a way that helped define it or the world. It was more akin to someone shuffling the spell pages in the PHB and then ripping out half of them at random. What's more, most of the spells were functionally identical to abilities of mundanes. Great for balance, I'm sure, but from a narrative perspective it just makes you wonder what the point is of learning magic.

Again, this is just from a narrative perspective, but as I understand it 4e wasn't especially well-received from a mechanical/gaming perspective either.

The problem with magic being as abstract and free form as anything else is that magic can hypothetically do anything, so it's hard to adjudicate an open system like that.

Given that my post was about the importance of costs and limits, specifically so that magic can't do whatever you want at no cost, I'm baffled as to what you mean here.

Are you now disagreeing with your own argument?




Magic needs rules

So why did you spend an entire paragraph saying that it was fine for magic to do anything at no cost or risk? :smallconfused:

[Vorpalchicken]

So I've made this character with no armour training and very little martial ability. Half the hit points of the fighters. He has his ability to cast spells limited if not by slots by some tinkered point system. Various enemies have resistances and immunities or advantage on their saves, not to mention things like counterspell and anti-magic.
And on top of that you want to turn his fireball into a single target cantrip because he got unlucky on a single d20 check you stuck in there?

[Witty Username]

I would use the d&d 5e spellcasting system as is, it works fine from a narrative perspective. If it ain't broke don't disintegrate it.

[Slipperychicken]

He might have a player like I do that refuses to play anything that's not labeled "D&D". Even now, after a year and some playing in a heavily modified 4E centric 5th Edition game, he whines about wanting to go back to "real" D&D. I'd love to throw out the BS I have to still deal with because WotC... but he's my best friend - so I coddle him... On top of that, writing isn't all that easy for a lot of folks. Far easier to coax something out of an existing set (or multiple sets) of similar rules than to reinvent the d20 yet again (or go way out there and try to incorporate a d24 into your system...


Players can complain all they want, but at the end of the day, the GM decides what game is played. The work put in by the GM entitles him to this decision. While he may seek player input, it is optional.

When players are confronted firmly with that reality (i.e. GM says "I'm sick of D&D, we're playing a Sword World campaign now, here are the books and character creation guidelines"), they will adapt even if it involves some complaining.

[Anonymouswizard]

Just play a different game. Or write a new one.

You're falling into the classic decades-old trap of "try to butcher $Current_Edition$ dnd into being the system I actually want to play", when the actual solution is to literally read, play, and/or write a different game entirely.

If you write a new game, then nothing has to "fit in" to dnd's paradigm, and you'll save yourself countless hours of learning and trying to shoehorn things into it.

I'm fourthing(?) this. The OP seems to dislike the the way D&D magic works, is making the Fantasy Heartbreaker mistake of trying to change D&D instead of looking or writing something that better fits the desire subsystem. As well as the White Wolf mistake of essentially giving mages a much bigger range of possibility than other archetypes (which works for White Wolf because they still discourage crossovers even after bringing the core archetypes closer in power).

But I don't think D&D players would accept narrative magic, because people who play D&D tend not to enjoy looking at things narratively. What are the narrative differences between throwing a fireball and throwing a lantrern? Or locking a door with magic against pushing a wardrobe in front of it? Most of the time none, the fact that magic was used to solve the problem doesn't matter.

I was once running a game of Fate Accelerated and the players kept saying things along the lines of 'I attack by throwing a fireball/lightning bolt, that's Clever right?' and I had to explain every time that no, massive blasts of elements are Flashy (now they could have been using their high Clever scores to set up traps or other uses of Create Advantage without much justification, as their enemies did a lot). The players were just so used to D&D style stats that they didn't realise that the system used 'how do you approach the problem' instead of 'what do you need to solve it'.

Anyway, I rarely play D&D anymore because I just don't like it's magic, I prefer magicians to be far more specialised. If you're a summoner you summon beings, if you're an illusionist you make people see things, if you harm people with your voice that's what you do. I'd much rather player a character who's magic is related to uncovering information that a D&D Diviner, who gets information based spells and fireball. So I prefer games like Unknown Armies, where magicians are very specialised, or Paleomythic where magic itself is limited (one talent is literally 'you can harm people by pointing a fetish and saying bad words', another is 'you can summon ghosts and give them tasks that last up to five minutes', and a third is 'you can enter the land of the dead and banish rogue spririts', all arguably less useful than the one that gives you up to four pets).

[stoutstien]

I think one way to potentially make magic more narratively powerful is to actually split up the spells into different sources. Bring back the idea that primal, Divine, and arcane magic are truly different from one another past which casting stat do you use.

I probably take it a step further and take the concept of spell slots away from divine casters and replace it with something like blessings and prayers.
It would add alot of complexity to the game but I believe it is worth it.

[Dr. Cliché]

I think one way to potentially make magic more narratively powerful is to actually split up the spells into different sources. Bring back the idea that primal, Divine, and arcane magic are truly different from one another past which casting stat do you use.

I probably take it a step further and take the concept of spell slots away from divine casters and replace it with something like blessings and prayers.
It would add alot of complexity to the game but I believe it is worth it.

With regard to changing spellcasting, it always seemed to me that a Sorcerer should be much closer to the Mystic in terms of casting.
- Spell Points instead of Spell Slots.
- Instead of choosing a larger number of individual spells, they instead choose a small number of disciplines that encompass several spells pertaining to a particular theme (perhaps most Bloodlines would specify a particular discipline that the sorcerer has to take).
- Spells can be made more powerful by spending additional spell points.

I think that this would go a long way to giving Sorcerers a different feel to Wizards. As it stands (IMO, obviously) their casting is far too rigid and too similar to that of Wizards.

I think the Mystic form of casting would make them feel far more like individuals with innate magic who, by nature of their backgrounds, are more heavily locked into particular fields.

[stoutstien]

With regard to changing spellcasting, it always seemed to me that a Sorcerer should be much closer to the Mystic in terms of casting.
- Spell Points instead of Spell Slots.
- Instead of choosing a larger number of individual spells, they instead choose a small number of disciplines that encompass several spells pertaining to a particular theme (perhaps most Bloodlines would specify a particular discipline that the sorcerer has to take).
- Spells can be made more powerful by spending additional spell points.

I think that this would go a long way to giving Sorcerers a different feel to Wizards. As it stands (IMO, obviously) their casting is far too rigid and too similar to that of Wizards.

I think the Mystic form of casting would make them feel far more like individuals with innate magic who, by nature of their backgrounds, are more heavily locked into particular fields.
Definitely. Always belived sorcerer should have magical effects that is not necessarily spells at all. Some of it might emulate spells but at it's core it's just raw magic.