Soft Magic in D&D

[Catullus64]

This is an inquiry mostly for DMs, but player input is of course welcome. My questions concern how magic operates within the fiction of your game, relative to how it operates in the game rules. Questions like:

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

I make these inquiries because I’m curious how common my approach to these things is. I try to reinforce, both by talking to players and through events in the gameplay, that magic is definitionally the realm of the strange, and that the magic that PCs themselves control will only ever represent a tiny slice of that unusual world.

There are (lower-case) sorcerers who have accomplished things beyond your scope, mostly by doing terrible things; there are wonders and terrors that you may never fully understand; and great power will always be difficult to control or come with unintended consequences. Magic seldom abides by constant rules. Magical learning is difficult to standardize and classify, so caster classes mostly exist as a tool for imagining your character, rather than a paradigm for all spellcasters in the world. I try not to have these transgressions of game rules and conventions occur too frequently, or they just start to seem contrived, but they are definitely a recurring element.

This is, of course, a D&D-specific iteration of the age-old argument between hard and soft magic systems in literature. The above philosophy is my attempt to retain the literary advantages of a mysterious and unexplained (“soft”) magic system in a tabletop game (rule-driven, and therefore "hard" by nature). Any commentary which is relevant to the debate of hard vs. soft magic is probably also relevant here.

Magic in D&D is generally too clean, consistent, and user-friendly for my liking, too much like a technology. It’s hard to sell magic as dangerous, miraculous, and unpredictable, when the game rules, in the interest of a smooth player experience, make most magic spells and objects safe, renewable, and replicable. I don’t think this is unique to D&D in specific: every roleplaying game with magic that I know of has, to some degree or another, sacrificed a good deal of the mystery behind magic for the sake of making it playable. (The best exception I can think of is Call of Cthulhu, which doesn't really count since it bends over backwards to emphasize that magic is primarily a tool for antagonists, and should not be used by PCs except in great need.) I try to compromise with that necessity via the sorts of decisions articulated in the bullet points above, but I am always curious how other people, with a similar leaning towards soft magic, strike a balance with the demands of the game rules.

[heavyfuel]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

In my games:


Yes, kinda. They don't call themselves by class ("Oh, you're a Wizard, because you studied magic instead of having it in your blood"), but they do undestand that Wizards are functionally different than Sorcerers.
Yes, the rules are ironclad. Whatever applies to the PCs also applies to NPCs and vice-versa.
Occasionally, yes. Everytime I do that, thougj, I let my players know in advance, never "oh, your spell failed because I said so"
n/a

[GravityEmblem]

Magic in my games are pretty hard, actually. But I try to tie that into the medieval stasis of the setting. If you've seen Onward, in that world, magic faded away because technology was easier to learn and less likely to go wrong. But in my world, Magic isn't that hard to learn-and technology is no less likely to go wrong than it. So, (with the exception of the Gnomes) most countries just use magic instead of technology.

Magic in D&D games can be as soft and hard as the DM wants it to be for the setting, and every DM is free to pick whatever works for their world.

[Demonslayer666]

1). Yes. The biggest division being between divine and arcane casters. Everyone has heard of spell casters, but in my game you can't identify a class by looking at them, unless they dress in an obvious fashion (robes and a pointy hat).
2). Not strictly ironclad. I will give enemy spellcasters special abilities and legendary actions that "cheat" for a boss. There are stock wizards and sorcerers that follow the rules though.
3). No. Messing with abilities on the fly is taboo for me. There may be additional effects, but not usually detrimental to the caster.
4). Magic in my games is not strictly limited to spells and magic items. There can be ancient magic, or god magic that is foreign and powerful.

I played in a game where the DM constantly messed with my Warlock's spell casting because I was a warlock of the great old one. The spells rarely did what the book said, and often was very bad for us: summoning demons, or flat out not working. It was very frustrating game to play in. While entertaining, it made my character very ineffective. So I would caution you on taking away player agency or nerfing abilities too often.

I think your take on magic is pretty common. The other two DMs I play with have a very similar view.

[MoiMagnus]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

1) Somewhat yes. I tend to have some in-universe explanation on how magic works, including which subclasses take their power from which source, etc. But different subclasses of the same class might get their power from different sources, and subclasses of different classes from the same source.

2) No. My philosophy is "the game is not canon, but closely follows an underlying story which is canon". Inconsistency due to game mechanics can be brushed of as "things don't really work that way, but we will assume it does for simplicity".

3) No. Well, only when it's a major component of the world-building which is known in advance by the players. In the end, game mechanics should resolve as expected by the players, and the spell system is a game mechanics.

4) They tend to quickly encounter magical objects (like magical boats) that clearly communicate that "if you take the decades necessary to actually do magic, you can do much more than what is in the books", so that they're not surprised when they encounter an Archimage's tower with a belt of rocks floating around and ready to be send at the face of potential attackers. But I still try to abide by the main restrictions player have (like concentration, etc) so that they don't feel cheated on.

In the end, if I really want soft magic, I tend to use rule-light systems rather than D&D.

[GravityEmblem]

Well, if we're doing numbered lists...

1. Yes. Wizards are different from Sorcerers, who are different from Warlocks, who are different from Clerics, who are different from Druids, who are different from Paladins and Rangers. eg. Warlocks are demonized in a way that Sorcerers and Wizards aren't, Clerics are generally more respected than Druids and Rangers, even if they're nature clerics and are very similar.
2. Mostly, yes. I might bend the rules of who can cast what for the story, and let a character cast a spell once or twice over the spell slot limit (mostly with teleport), but I don't break the rules.
3. Never, absolutely never.
4. I don't really make an effort, because as mentioned earlier, magic does strictly follow the PhB rules. My world is one where magic is completely understood--there is little fear or contempt of magic, as there is little mystery about it. Magic A is Magic A, as TvTropes says.

[Catullus64]

I played in a game where the DM constantly messed with my Warlock's spell casting because I was a warlock of the great old one. The spells rarely did what the book said, and often was very bad for us: summoning demons, or flat out not working. It was very frustrating game to play in. While entertaining, it made my character very ineffective. So I would caution you on taking away player agency or nerfing abilities too often.

I think your take on magic is pretty common. The other two DMs I play with have a very similar view.

That sounds deeply frustrating, and makes me think I should be more specific on that particular point. I'm not advocating for making a character's spells baseline unreliable, but rather on having them be impacted by specific factors in the story.

A Fiend Warlock's spells will go awry if he is carrying a powerfully sanctified object. To resurrect a character using Raise Dead, the dead character's player must solve a puzzle which represents his soul fighting its way back to life. Remove Curse is very limited in its applicability, most curses require more thoughtful and specific action to be lifted. The deviations from a spell's baseline functionality is always narratively motivated, not random, and with a specific cause that can be identified by the players, if they investigate skillfully. When done this way, altering the functionality of a character's spells is no more a violation of player trust than breaking a fighter's sword. If it happens all the time and for little reason, that's not very fun, but when done with precise motivation, it injects new life into a player's character and their abilities.

[Xervous]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?


1. Depends on how GM and player agree to flavor stuff. Can the standard flavor of Wizards and Druids match the world we’re using? Absolutely. That’s something to be laid out for session 0.

2/3 Anything that breaks the rules or expectations does so because it is important or otherwise noteworthy. Magic doesn’t fail or warp for a lame footnote of a reason that hadn’t been known prior and adds little to the game. Either
A. Establish magic is WH40k/(insert whatever uncertainty resolution method is presented at session 0) random
B. Use deviations from the stated norm to drive select events and plot points
Or
C. Don’t waste time shutting down players actions for no good reason

4. If magic doesn’t conform neatly to the baseline rules the players are served that is absolutely something they must be warned of at session 0. Generally this will be accompanied by the listings of house rules, setting details, and of course a reminder that stuff doesn’t go wonky without a reason. The reasons might not be immediately visible but persistent players can unearth the explanations. If I wanted Calvinball I’d just get everyone’s buyin on free form.

[MrStabby]

I am somewhat in between.

I like what the PCs see to cary asmuch infomration as possible, which means having what they see take place inside a framework. So if a caster casts wall of force, it is pretty likely that they have good intelligence saves for example.

Then there are the more thematic casters - if an enemy is all about fire then it is possible they might cast both heat metal AND fireball, but then there would be a strong theme evidenced to override the expectations of a class structure.

In general I don't build enemies as PCs. What I do do is build enemies that correlate with class features. If I have an enemy that has a sneak attack type ability it is also more likely to have an cunning action type ability as well. If an enemy can wildshape, it is more likely to be high wisdom than not... and so on.

Not hard rules, but seeing consistancy as a virtue - only sacrifce it if it gets you something at least as good for your game.

[MoiMagnus]

The deviations from a spell's baseline functionality is always narratively motivated, not random, and with a specific cause that can be identified by the players, if they investigate skillfully.

I'd say the example from Demonslayer666 was narratively motivated too. The DM wanted to represent the fact that the GOO is not by essence exterior to the standard reality, so its magic does not behave the same as usual magic. And it's probable the DM came up with a justification for why the spell was working in this specific way in this specific instance.

Being narratively motivated, while a step in the good direction, is not enough for the "exceptions" to not be frustrating to the players. The question important here is "What do you get in exchange of those breaking of expectation?". In the good case, you get a new and interesting puzzle to solve, or some better immersion in the universe, etc. In the bad case, you only get the frustration of not being able to play your character as expected.

[Unoriginal]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world?

The divisions exist and are acknowledged, but the terminology isn't used by everyone. Most wizards will probably call themselves wizards, but that doesn't mean all will.



Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?

Define "meaningful". Most will realize there is a difference, but they're likely not aware of the details.



• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?

Yes and no. The PHB rules of magic are on things *usually* work for casters, but it doesn't mean there is no way to subvert them. Acererak has two 9th level spell slots, for example. It's just that it won't be regular magic, mostly something like Epic Boons.

Furthermore, magic in the PHB is only a fraction of the magic in the world. Different spells, rituals, special powers that aren't on creatures' statblcoks, weird magic, etc. are also part of the setting.



• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)

Special circumstances can affect spells, but I'd generally avoid "your spell doesn't work like that" stuff.



• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?.

I mean, I tell them so if it is so.

[Democratus]

The codified magic rules are known by those who are educated. The various spellcasting classes represent how mortals tap into magic, the "training wheels" that allow civilized folk to use magic without being corrupted/destroyed/consumed.

Monsters, and those who have become monstrous, do not use spells. They are able to tap directly into magic without worry because they are outside the ken of mortals and do not care about maintaining any humanity.

Monsters do crazy things that break the rules of mortal "safe" magic, like raising armies of undead or warping the flow of cause and effect.

[Fable Wright]

This is an inquiry mostly for DMs, but player input is of course welcome. My questions concern how magic operates within the fiction of your game, relative to how it operates in the game rules. Questions like:

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

I mostly run Eberron, so...


Yes. Very much. The average peasant doesn't know too much about the difference between the "tree-hugging spellslingers" and the "academic types", but an adventurer can and will likely be educated on the difference, and most characters of learning can differentiate somewhat.
The rules of magic for the PCs are ironclad for PCs and NPCs, but they can be amended by magic items and custom DMG charms & boons. For PCs and NPCs. Eldritch Machines in Eberron are the perfect example, they're plot devices on a stick. What do they do? Whatever you want. There are some living Eldritch Machines that an do things that the players cannot comprehend. The magic that the peoples of Khorvaire know is a fraction of the magic in the universe; the Giants knew more, and the Dragons know more than anyone.
In special situations, e.g. Manifest Zones (places where planar bleed occurs); or courtesy of items/charms in the area. Players will (except in the case of Divination spells) invariably get forewarning or foreshadowing, because they understand their magic.
I emphasize that magic in the world conforms to a consistent set of rules. Spell slots are a very small fraction of these rules. But every non-spell bit of magic I create works symmetrically. If you are given a charm or magic item, it'll work the same as if the NPC used it. Some NPCs (almost always sorcerers) have the innate ability to create charms/boons. Player Sorcerers can learn how to make them, too, by sacrificing slots/SP for as long as the charm is invested.

[KorvinStarmast]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
In one game I run, yes. In another one, no. I work it out with the players to get the 'feel' right for the world.

In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
Generally, no. NPCs have a variety of abilities players do not, and legendary actions and lair actions ramp that up even higher. If I need an NPC to have a bonus action that does something interesting, I'll add it in.

• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.) Rarely, and if I am going to do that I tell the player ahead of time. The only exception is with artificacts: identify simply does not work on them. There are a few oddball magic items that don't respond to identify since they unlock capability as levels go up, but mostly I go by the book on magic items.

• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters? No, what I do is establish the exceptions. The PHB tells them how a spell works. If I want it to work differently, I need to offer them the adjustment, not spring it on them out of the blue.

Exception: stumbling into wild magic zones. I only have one of these and each spell, when cast, more or less becomes a wand of wonder.


the magic that PCs themselves control will only ever represent a tiny slice of that unusual world. Yeah, there is all kinds of stuff that they can only find, not make.


Magic seldom abides by constant rules. Magical learning is difficult to standardize and classify, so caster classes mostly exist as a tool for imagining your character, rather than a paradigm for all spellcasters in the world.
They were all (generally) mentored by someone; that's how I run it. We had one tempest cleric who was a 'mid life conversion' character. He wanted to 'learn magic on the job' so I rolled with it.


The above philosophy is my attempt to retain the literary advantages of a mysterious and unexplained (“soft”) magic system in a tabletop game (rule-driven, and therefore "hard" by nature). Magic is dangerous. How that reflects in my game world is the suspicion in which the mundanes hold spell casters, until good intent is shown. Also, spell casters are Extrmely Rare, since most who attempt that path die along the way because ... magic is dangerous, or, because clerical training shows the candidate to be unworthy, or, the prospective druid wild shaped into a hare and ended up being lunch for an eagle, or, the Great Old One spoke to a person who went mad - they didn't become a warlock. Or, or, or ...


Magic in D&D is generally too clean, consistent, and user-friendly for my liking, too much like a technology. It’s hard to sell magic as dangerous, miraculous, and unpredictable, when the game rules, in the interest of a smooth player experience, make most magic spells and objects safe, renewable, and replicable. It's A Game. In order for there to be smooth play, it needs to Be User Friendly. In the stories I write, magic is way more dangerous. In D&D we are Playing A Game.

[Galithar]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

I have created some unique background to magic in my world (which is a HEAVILY modified Eberron).

- No. Magic (known as essence) is a somewhat mysterious force. People can manipulate it to a certain degree, and their abilities may come from different methods. All reach the same end. I also have modified races so that most have an expanded spell list (Like the Eberron dragon marked races) so that the lines between classes blur.

- No. PC and NPC magic can act different, but NPC magic is NEVER more potent than PC magic. Some of them operate on a different recharge rate, most NPC clerics have their slots recharge less often for example. Some as rarely as once a year. They don't always follow standard slot progression either. They may have 3 first level slots, a fourth level slot, and a sixth level slot (A rather powerful NPC Cleric). In that example the first level slots recharge daily. The fourth level once a week, and the sixth level once a month. I do this to reconcile resurrection magic with the fact that most people are still never resurrected. That food can't just be summoned for towns or cities etc. My big rule is never let an NPC do something better than the PCs. My players are the main characters and no one should be able to out do them if they are of equal or higher level.

- Slightly? I have modified some component requirements. Namely, material components are replaced with focuses for everything non-costly and all casting classes have a focus. The focus operates exactly like a component pouch would. You simply need to have it on your person and have a free hand. Costly components are mostly kept the same, though many spells have replaced diamonds with equivalent value dragonshards. This has almost no effect on gameplay though (some spells that didn't use the same component before do now just at different values [from each other, not from the book]). This is mostly just a change to the lore.

- Yes! I reinforce early and repeatedly that magic is weird, and they have the most powerful version of it. That's why they are heroes. I even go as far as letting any Martial class players know that they are a better than average fighter because they are like Anakin in episode 1. They use magic to enhance themselves without even realizing they are doing it. That 16 strength really is superhuman strength, once you hit 20 you are stronger than any human that has ever lived in real life. Same for the other stats. Anything 16 and above is superhuman, you can do things that are realistically impossible. This shows most in what I call "narrative scenes" roleplaying opportunities where I encourage players to do something fantastic with the understanding that (barring absurdity) it will work. You can have that Sherlock Holmes (The RDJ one) moment where you use your observations and knowledge to cripple an opponent even if you may lack the strength or typical skills associated with it etc. Going more into that is an entire other subject though, and if anyone is interested in hearing more just let me know and I'll try to get a thread up to talk about it.

I'd also be happy to go into more detail on my magic lore if anyone is interested. I'm trying to avoid too much of a wall of text.


Edit: Some more thoughts. Magic is inherently dangerous in my world as well. I created myself a loophole to explain the PCs safety in using it. They are all a special kind of caster called a channeler (NPCs of this type exist as well) that basically create their own magic. Everyone else draws on the essence that is naturally in the world. The flow, speed, and direction of essence is what creates magic. A channeler creates their own essence to manipulate where another caster manipulates existing essence. The process of doing so can go "wonky" if a sudden shift in essence (usually, but not always natural magical currents) changes the flow of your essence unexpectedly, you get a surge. Channelers don't risk this because they don't care about what natural essence is doing, they don't touch it.

[Clistenes]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?

Yes and no. Druids, Clerics and most often Paladins belong to religious groups, and play specific roles within, so their class is meaningful to people around them. Wizards belonging to a magic guild or magic academy are wizards by profession, so people call them wizards...etc.

But a merchant with a level as Rogue is a perceived as a merchant, not a Rogue. A princess who has a Wizard level and a princess who has a Bard level are exactly the same. The king is the king, regardless of having level as Fighter or Ranger. A Barbarian bandit and a Rogue bandit are just bandits who use different fighting styles...etc.

Unless the character has a social role that is based on belonging to a class, his class is perceived as merely a set of skills, not as a defining feature of the character.

• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?


NPCs usually follow the same rules as PCs, but there are exceptions when it's convenient for the plot.


• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)


I would do it if it's relevant to the plot or if it adds flavor without hurting the PCs...


• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

If something doesn't work like in the PHB, I just warn them before starting and I explain why...

[Rusvul]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

1) For the most part, although the terminology is a good deal more fluid than the official names of all the different classes. Your average commoner might not know or care the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard, or a druid and a cleric, but they'd understand that magic comes, broadly, in a few different 'flavors' (arcane/divine/primal/psionic), and that different people take different paths to power. A more educated NPC would understand what each of these paths are and what makes them different--they might even use some of the terms in the PHB, but interchangeably with others (Warlock = Witch = Hexer = Havocker).
2) The rules are more-or-less the same for all spellcasters, regardless of whether they're PCs. However, in my setting, spirits (a catch-all including animistic spirits, but also all kinds of outsiders) have different magic that's considerably softer. Spirit magic is typically also much more specific and confusing. Druids in my setting channel spirit magic, but the nature of being a mortal conduit for spirit power is that you have to make sense of it somehow, so it bears a resemblance to mortal magic.
3) I make a few changes depending on the vibe of the table, mostly to utility magic. I sometimes houserule that Animate Dead requires a 25gp onyx, and that Animate Dead, Identify, and similar spells consume their material components--that's about as far as I go, though.
4) Not especially, with the exception of identifying spirit magic as explicitly different.

[jjordan]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

-Yes and no. Magic is magic as far as most people are concerned. The fact that casters access magic differently is something that is important only to casters.
-I don't break or change the rules in any way that would reduce effectiveness for PCs without discussing it with players first. If I make it possible for NPCs to do something then it is possible for PCs to do it if they jump through the correct hoops. So that makes me very careful about what changes I make.
-If I make changes to spell casting that have a direct effect on the PCs then I talk it over with the players. I've had players ask for me to implement malfunction rules for their characters. I've suggested modifications to spell-casting based on PC backstories and sometimes those have been accepted and sometimes they've been rejected.
-I try to make my players understand that the rules are actually guidelines and that when I will not be strictly adhering to them I will talk it over with them. Magic can take many forms and they may encounter magic they know nothing about. I also allow, and encourage, them to customize their magic; creating new cantrips, customizing spells, and so on.

I would prefer a softer magic system in which characters have fewer spells and more capability to vary them. Where magic is dangerous and casting it is a skill. Where casters cannot simply copy a spell off a scroll and automatically know how to cast it. Where familiars and focii and other aids have a real effect and casters scrabble for every single advantage they can grasp. But that's just me.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would prefer a softer magic system in which characters have fewer spells and more capability to vary them. Where magic is dangerous and casting it is a skill. Where casters cannot simply copy a spell off a scroll and automatically know how to cast it. Where familiars and focii and other aids have a real effect and casters scrabble for every single advantage they can grasp. But that's just me. I like the cut of your jib. :smallsmile:

[Xervous]

I would prefer a softer magic system in which characters have fewer spells and more capability to vary them. Where magic is dangerous and casting it is a skill. Where casters cannot simply copy a spell off a scroll and automatically know how to cast it. Where familiars and focii and other aids have a real effect and casters scrabble for every single advantage they can grasp. But that's just me.

So a dating simulator for sentient spells? That could be a good one.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My two cents:

1) Types of magic are known and codified. Wizardry (which codifies the pre-existing sorcery; warlocks use a form of wizardry but gain their spell slots in different ways), harmonic magic (bardic), spirit magic (druids and rangers), "divine" magic (clerics and paladins). Spell lists are not codified for anybody but game purposes. Spellcasters are not necessarily organized in any way, although some areas have organizations. Really only those who have studied the issue know anything about this, although common people know that they're unlikely to get a healing spell out of a hedge-mage, while they may out of a priest. Classes as such are not reified in any way. They're pure game abstraction.

2&3) The PHB rules are a game interface, an API for players to use to interact with magic. As such, I rarely impose limits beyond those presented unless there's a telegraphed environmental influence. However, NPCs are not necessarily bound by all of the rules. Action economy--yes. Generally. Although I do give monsters non-spell bonus actions that mimic spells. I've tried to get away from "normal" spellcaster NPCs where possible, because they're a pain to run. Instead I give monsters a selection of spell-mimicking abilities that follow the same basic rules. And there are lots of NPCs who don't follow the normal progression of slots or spells-known. A lot of the priests, for instance, are really closer to warlocks. Except they only have specific spells taught by their patron/school. You might have someone who can cast zone of truth. And no other spells. Or someone who can cast lesser restoration as a second-level spell and raise dead as a 5th (?) level spell. But nothing else. Clerics are separate, special thing from priests. There are NPC "clerics", but they often don't have the full set of proficiencies (merely the same spell-casting feature). Lots of "shamans" are really bardic casters with a different list and some alternate features. Etc.

4) There is a lot of magic out there that isn't in the printed books. Both spells and non-spell magical traits and abilities. Rituals that don't interact with spell slots. Chants and song-based magics that the commoners use in their every-day life. There's a particular cantrip (which I should get around to actually writing up in detail one of these days) that high elves often have as their "free cantrip"--it lets them tailor their garments on the fly, including changing colors and shifting the hem/neck/etc lines around. Etc. Basically, the PHB lists contain "adventuring" spells. Those other ones aren't off-limits, they're just not included as being of little interest to a practicing adventurer (and having little-to-no effect in an adventuring context) or being hidden/secret/lost. For instance, there's are many rituals which anyone can cast, feat or no feat. They can't be cast from spell slots and generally require some form of sacrifice (with willing sacrifice of the caster's own life being the biggest power boost). They're purely narrative features. PCs can learn them, but rarely do and they're not codified in the books.

I've written up a complete explanation for how spells work in my setting. But not all magic is spells.

[Fable Wright]

I would prefer a softer magic system in which characters have fewer spells and more capability to vary them. Where magic is dangerous and casting it is a skill. Where casters cannot simply copy a spell off a scroll and automatically know how to cast it. Where familiars and focii and other aids have a real effect and casters scrabble for every single advantage they can grasp. But that's just me.


I like the cut of your jib. :smallsmile:


So a dating simulator for sentient spells? That could be a good one.

Consider checking out Ars Magica 5th edition. Familiars are a key part of your wizard and deeply customizable; where it takes time and someone's deciphered lab notes to re-invent their spells, replacing their own unique take on magical tradition with your own; where magi scrabble for every advantage they can grasp, and jealously search for and guard their secrets.

I have seen a large number of independent attempts to get Ars Magica 5e and D&D 5e to fit together. You may be able to find something to your liking.

[JackPhoenix]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

Depends on the campaign. For the current one....

1) No. Every spellcaster is a witch and shuld be burned, but until then, we may as well get some use out of them. We'll keep an eye on them, just in case. (in fact, there's a note in the list of changes I've given to the players at the start of the game: "Magic Initiate: A witch! Burn her!"
2) Yes and no. No, NPCs don't get to randomly ignore rules just because they are NPCs, but there are ways to unique things: one boss fight involved a sorcerer with a bunch of other spellcasters magically bound to him, giving him access to more power: He could off-load concentration to them and buffs (and debuffs, if there were any) cast on him also affected them, use their mana to cast his spells, and every caster allowed him to cast few of their own spells. As the communion slaves went down, he lost access to those spells, the spells they were concentrating on went down and he was getting closer to his own, rather modest, spellcasting skills. He also had legendary action to drain health from them, healing himself, but sacrificing power to do so (and if enough of them died, the ritual he was performing would've failed even if he survived, not that the PCs cared, they were there to kill everyone involved anyway). And the ritual itself wasn't coming from the written materials either. The group's wizard got his spellbook, and can potentially learn the rituals (and more) if she's stupid enough to study it... so far, skimming through the content resulted only in a mild case of corruption and insanity.
3) Yes, every spell can have dangerous and unpredictable consequences. The spellcaster in the group knows that (but is pretty lucky with miscast checks so far), and though I haven't shared the table with him, the player knows there's some really nasty stuff in there (almost summoned a bunch of daemons in circumstances where that would certainly led to at least one PC death, but I've noticed I'm looking at the wrong line when putting them on the field, and the actual result was more harmless. A shame, though all the players got a lot of laugh out of that one). Applies to enemies, too, of course. There's a ton of other houserules for magic and spellcasting, and there are other circumstances that may come into play (in the boss fight above, the magical energies were so chaotic the miscast was automatic... it hit the boss harder than the PC, thanks to lucky rolls.
4) Yes

Of course, the game is the result of "we'd like to play a campaign in Warhammer setting, but half of us can't be bothered to learn WFRP rules", so the result is 5e game heavily houseruled to fit the tone better.

[Jerrykhor]

It's A Game.

Probably the best advice here, and the absolute truth. Some new DMs forget this when homebrewing their own setting. They have pre-conceived notions of how magic should be, what magic is, etc, but they don't know the impact of their houserules.

[kazaryu]

This is an inquiry mostly for DMs, but player input is of course welcome. My questions concern how magic operates within the fiction of your game, relative to how it operates in the game rules. Questions like:

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
no. This is more true for martial classes than caster classes, because obviously caster classes actually get their magic in different ways. But from the mortal perspective even that gets muddied. for example: Druids (the class) in my setting serve the same basic function in druidic society that wizards do in 'civilized' society. except they study nature rather than magic itself. for clerics, not all clerics are priests, and not all priests are clerics (mechanically). Religions do have 'priests' but that has more to do with their devotion and whatnot. mechanically they could just as easily be paladins, or even divine soul sorcs/celestial warlocks. since its all about the character, not their magic. rangers, fighters, barbarians, rogues all are even more muddled because..i mean realistically whats the outward difference? y


• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn? no, not even close. even the book doesn't treat them as iron clad. considering some monsters can straight up cast spells as a legendary action. So, not only do spells exist that the PC's don't have access to (at least, not of their own volition) but I allow myself to homebrew whatever i want. for example: In a short epic level mini-campaign im running. my players are going to encounter a special type of golem, explicilty meant to shut down casters. they have a charge system. at the beginning of every turn they gain a charge. they can also gain charges by using an action on their turn, or being targeted by a spell. on their turn they can expend a charge to cast Dispel magic (at 3rd level +5 bonus on the check) and at any point they can expend a charge to cast counterspell (3rd level) as a reaction, based on how little of their action economy they used on their own turn. for example, if they didn't move, or use a bonus action, or use their action. you get the idea.

• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.) ummmm, not so much on the fly. if i do it its usually something i decide before hand. and its usually an environmental effect. for example: in that same minicampaign they're gonna approach the big bad. and he has a regional effect that shuts down darkvision. both mundane and magical. Other than that, things like an area where magic is 'unstable' could exist, but not something i've built yet.

• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters? absolutely. that is...if im playing with people that don't already have the same understanding do. my current group all kinda understand/agree that anything goes when it comes to homebrew, so long as it doesn't feel cheap. for example: the golem i spoke of above. When they had settled on a course that would take them in direct conflict with those creatures, i made a point to step out of character to warn them that where they were headed could be frustrating for them as players (if they weren't prepared) due to the anti-magic nature they'd necessarily *have* to encounter there. (for context, it was a high magic area that had gotten completely overrun by an army. Logically, that army *has* to have some pretty potent anti-magic). As a result of that warning they elected to change course to pursue some intelligence about what they might encounter there.

[jjordan]

Consider checking out Ars Magica 5th edition. I will look for that, and the D&D5E ports. I've got 2nd Edition and 4th Edition and I like a lot of the concepts

[Kane0]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?


• Not as such. The main distinctions I draw are how the character acquires their magic: learned, granted or innate, or a combination thereof. Common names (and slurs) exist but they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. To the layfolk 'mage' and 'witch' are indeed different things.
• For the sake of gameplay I keep the basic rules equal between PCs and NPCs. The rules can be bent and broken in the name of a good story but the players depend on the rules to interact with the game so I try not to shift the ground from under them
• Occasionally, yes. I homebrew plenty but that aside there may be times where being halfway through a concentration spell or ritual may be distracting to something else you want to do, for example.
• Put simply: chekhov's gun. If I put it in the world, I can expect my players to want to interact with and/or acquire it. I do use plenty of material that isn't in a book or 'brew document but if and when I do I always keep in the back of my mind the consideration that it will come into contact with the players.

What I've actually been really struggling with lately is a solid explanation for how magic works in a scientific sense. I don't mean in relation to the real world, I mean a more detailed reasoning for how magic operates beyond handwavium and 'the weave'. Every time I try to collate basic rules in order to form theories there's always more examples to consider and rules that seem to conflict.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What I've actually been really struggling with lately is a solid explanation for how magic works in a scientific sense. I don't mean in relation to the real world, I mean a more detailed reasoning for how magic operates beyond handwavium and 'the weave'. Every time I try to collate basic rules in order to form theories there's always more examples to consider and rules that seem to conflict.


Assumption: D&D worlds generally have some form of ambient energy field in and through everything. I'm going to call that "aether". This is how all the "impossible on earth" things happen--aether is part of the physics of this world. This aether can have "aspects" that reflect the nature of the world at that point. So a brightly lit area would have some form of "illuminated" aspect (or high amounts of luminous aspect, depending on how you want to conceptualize things). A hot area would have significant levels of fire aspect.

Spells are patterns that a soul can put energy into to produce a resonant effect in the aether in the target (area/creature/etc). These resonant effects alter the aspects of the aether--fireball imposes an artificial excess of fire-aspect, producing heat without combustion. Spells that interact with people (ie healing, mental, etc) alter the aether aspects of that person to impose effects.

Components are part of the pattern itself--fireball needs that pinch of bat guano or the equivalent (a tuned focus) as one "sub-circuit" in the overall pattern. So components have to be produced exactly--no trying to hide the verbal ones by mumbling, that disrupts the pattern matching.

Spells like dispel magic, counterspell, and antimagic field act to disrupt the resonant effect. Dispel and antimagic field damp out the resonance once established--in the area of an AMF, the aether is forcibly smoothed and cannot resonate. Counterspell is basically a jammer--you throw random energy into the forming resonance effect to try to disrupt the pattern. Sometimes works, sometimes doesn't--powerful/complex patterns can either overpower or compensate for "jamming".

Some spells (cantrips and rituals) can be cast by drawing on ambient aether to fuel the spell. These are either weak (modulated basically by how much energy your soul can draw on at once) or slow (rituals). But most spells require energy from the caster to be pumped into the pattern. This is where spell slots come in.

Spell slots are like quantum transitions in a soul. Just like you get a burst of energy (in the form of a photon) when an atom in an excited state relaxes to a lower state, spellcasters learn to bring their souls into an excited state and let them relax, giving off a burst of energy that they can channel into a spell-pattern. And like quantum transitions, there are only a limited number of each possible state-transition (spell slots per level), and state transitions are both quantized (in discrete levels) and not simply integer-multiples in energy (so you can't just do 2 1sts and replace a 2nd--a second level spell might be 3.45x as much energy). And the deeper into your soul you go, the more energy you get out (just like core transitions produce higher energy photons than near-free transitions).

They recover with rest because it takes a period of relaxation and sleep to "re-excite" the soul packets.

This separation of slot and spell lets you consider that different classes get slots mostly the same (through meditation, practice, and dedication, so half- and 1/3- casters get fewer because they're splitting their efforts) except warlocks, who "cheated". Instead of forming their slots naturally, their patron ripped them open. Part of that means that they fill up fast, but they're fewer in number and they don't have the full spectrum. But all the classes get their spells differently. Wizards learn them from books through memorization and theory. Sorcerers are born with those patterns in their genetic code and can mutate them slightly. Bards learn them by listening to the harmonies of the world. Druids get them (in my setting) from the spirits of nature, who inhabit their bodies and perform spells in exchange for being fed off the spell slots. Clerics "download" them from their gods, channeling the god's instructions in real-time. Paladins are similar, except dealing with the fundamental forces that govern Oaths and sacrifice. Etc.

Magic items represent etching those patterns into an object, often providing an internal source of energy (ie scrolls and charged objects). Attunement represents connecting your soul to the object to provide a source of energy for it to recharge or for the object to channel the pattern through you (like an external USB port, the soul serving as an interface with the ambient aether). Etc.

[Kemev]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?

Yes, in my games I try to differentiate between spellcasters as much as possible. I feel like it's good for immersion; it gives players more cues to build unique characters, and it also gives me more story-telling hooks to make the players feel special. A village that needs a spellcaster to hunt a monster is bland; a village that needs a conjurer/exorcist/plant pruner to summon a faerie / get rid of a ghost / extirpate their carnivorous orchids has more flavor to it.



• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?

PHB is only for players, with some exceptions (see below). If I feel like an NPC needs a spell, I'm more likely to write it in its as a special ability... but I'm not necessarily giving those abilities to players. This is mostly for my convenience, since it can be tricky to track multiple spells during combat, and it's easier for me to gauge power level for custom monsters.

For example the standard Archmage NPC has a super junky stat block. If you clean it up a bit, it's AC is always 15, is resistant to damage except from magical weapons, immune to mind affecting abilities, has a relevant attack cantrip and leveled attack spell, no useless weapon attack and only a handful of actual spells that have to be relevant in an encounter (ie, no Mage Armor, Stoneskin, Mind Blank, cantrips, Detect Thoughts, Scrying, fewer attack spells).

I wouldn't write an NPC that could cast ANY two leveled spells... that's crazy powerful. But with some restrictions it's not an unreasonable ability for a boss monster. Maybe I'd draw up a Vampire Mage statblock with the ability to Misty Step X times/encounter, then give it 2-3 different spells it could use, something like that.



• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)

I do that for some rituals, but not other spells. As other people have pointed out, it's really frustrating for character planning... if a player built towards a certain spell or effect, they're going to be frustrated if you yank that rug out from under them.

Rituals I usually put more requirements on, but I also let players propose and write their own rituals, so it balances out. (This is also something I communicate clearly early on.) Also, if a player wants a unique/permanent effect ("hey, that archmage had permanent Mage Armor why can't I?") I'm usually amenable to letting them earn it as a boon.



• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?


Yes. I try to foster the idea that it's a large, strange, world, and characters only see part of it.

[EggKookoo]

I try to encourage my players to think about their PCs as people inhabiting a world, instead of richly-detailed game pieces. To that end, I will do what I can to break the connection between game mechanics and in-fiction perception. I'll remove, blur, or subvert anything that has a strong chance of undermining the integrity of the fictional world. This means I run the game as though there was a layer of abstraction between the players and what's going on in the game. I often remind them that game rules and mechanics are for us at the table, rather than any kind of accurate description of what the PCs are experiencing. So that said...


Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world?

Not in the least. NPCs have no inkling of the idea and really neither do the PCs, although they have a bit more sense of themselves individually. Each PC sees the other PCs essentially as NPCs (i.e. they're no different to the PC). So while PC Bob may know (or, rather, have an intuitive sense) that he has a kind of internal structure to the way he does things, he doesn't comprehend that PC Betty does too, or that NPC Jane doesn't.


Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?

No, not really. Most people in the setting only know a spell has been cast when they see it happen. They didn't know the creature was capable of casting spells beforehand (well, unless they have personal experience or perhaps have heard stories or something). So the idea that there are even categories of spells or spellcasters is outside their comprehension.

This is also true for non-spellcasters. Run of the mill inhabitants have no idea what a "fighter" is or how that would be different from, say, a "veteran." That guy just has a sword and is using it pretty well. It's not like they can somehow perceive the fighter is making two or three "attacks on his action" or anything like that. He's just fast with the blade.

The PCs have a little more understanding of things, but really only so far as it relates to what they individually can do. While my players may know which spells are coming up in their characters' level progression, the PCs themselves do not (necessarily). I'm not even sure the PCs know that they have something like spell slots, but rather just feel like they're tapped out or mentally exhausted. I know there have been arguments that eventually they would be able to understand spell slots and spell levels and whatnot just by experimenting day after day, but to my mind that route will eventually result in the PCs knowing their AC, HP, level, and all the other game mechanic things I'm trying hard to keep out of my game, so I resist it.


Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?

NPC magic-users absolutely can do things PC magic-users can't, and vice-versa. I'll create NPCs that can cast whatever spells I want them to, based on the concept behind the character. I'll give NPCs ritual versions of spells that aren't listed as rituals in the PHB, and even level-lock them. Meaning the NPC can cast, say, modify memory, but only as a ritual and only at 9th level, and only three times per day. I use single-spell NPCs quite a bit. I haven't yet had an NPC spellcaster cast multiple spells in a single turn, but my party is just hitting tier 2 right now. Maybe later...

Again, I do this kind of thing for non-spellcasters as well. I'll just up and give a guard something like Leadership or Pack Tactics because I want that creature to stand out in some way, or just to add variety. In a recent encounter, I had a modified succubus that could use her charm feature in a kind of ritual-like way, working on a creature over time. This slow-charmed creature didn't interfere with her regular charm, so she could have two servants. It allowed me to give her a subservient NPC henchman without removing her ability to try to charm one of the PCs.


Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)

I try not to in the midst of gameplay. I don't mind that the players view the game as a game (I just don't want their PCs to think of it as such), and messing with the rules can sap some of the fun. I will sometimes narrate natural 1s or 20s in unusual ways. So, maybe critting on ice knife and bringing the creature to 0 HP freezes it solid, or something like that. But nothing outrageous.

I do encourage creative (outside the box) thinking for spells, especially utility spells. My druid player wanted to cross a visibly-rickety bridge that spanned a short river, and she asked if she could use shape water to raise up a frozen section of the river to support the bridge as the party crossed. I allowed it. I was an interesting solution and it didn't harm anything. I had come up with multiple ways for the PCs to cross safely -- she just added one more.


As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

Yes, as often as I can.

[Demonslayer666]

That sounds deeply frustrating, and makes me think I should be more specific on that particular point. I'm not advocating for making a character's spells baseline unreliable, but rather on having them be impacted by specific factors in the story.

A Fiend Warlock's spells will go awry if he is carrying a powerfully sanctified object. To resurrect a character using Raise Dead, the dead character's player must solve a puzzle which represents his soul fighting its way back to life. Remove Curse is very limited in its applicability, most curses require more thoughtful and specific action to be lifted. The deviations from a spell's baseline functionality is always narratively motivated, not random, and with a specific cause that can be identified by the players, if they investigate skillfully. When done this way, altering the functionality of a character's spells is no more a violation of player trust than breaking a fighter's sword. If it happens all the time and for little reason, that's not very fun, but when done with precise motivation, it injects new life into a player's character and their abilities.
That's fine if that is pointed out before playing so the player knows how their spells work. Surprise one-offs are also ok in my book.


I'd say the example from Demonslayer666 was narratively motivated too. The DM wanted to represent the fact that the GOO is not by essence exterior to the standard reality, so its magic does not behave the same as usual magic. And it's probable the DM came up with a justification for why the spell was working in this specific way in this specific instance.

Being narratively motivated, while a step in the good direction, is not enough for the "exceptions" to not be frustrating to the players. The question important here is "What do you get in exchange of those breaking of expectation?". In the good case, you get a new and interesting puzzle to solve, or some better immersion in the universe, etc. In the bad case, you only get the frustration of not being able to play your character as expected.

The cleric also got the shaft frequently as well, but not quite as much or to the same degree. It felt random and arbitrary, and not part of the story. I'm sure they justified it in their mind as interesting and fun, but it was not. Casting a spell should work like it says in the book 90% of the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Casting a spell should work like it says in the book 90% of the time.

And when it doesn't, there should be obvious conditions (environmental or otherwise) in play that put the player on notice that things may not work optimally. I had a DM who pulled a completely un-telegraphed "no, your spirit guardians not only hit your allies even if you excluded them, but you can't stop concentrating on the spell voluntarily" BS during one session. It totally sucked.

[EggKookoo]

What I've actually been really struggling with lately is a solid explanation for how magic works in a scientific sense. I don't mean in relation to the real world, I mean a more detailed reasoning for how magic operates beyond handwavium and 'the weave'. Every time I try to collate basic rules in order to form theories there's always more examples to consider and rules that seem to conflict.

Let them.

My current homebrewed setting is very dying-Earth and post-future. Magic is not at all natural, and boils down to the cumulative fallout from numerous Clarkean events, experiments, systems, and the like that have happened at different times for different purposes over the eons. The closest thing the current magic-wielders and spellcasters have to understanding it all is the division into conventional schools. But those schools are imposed after the fact, at least in some cases.

There's a lot of nanotechnology and augmented reality going on.

[MoiMagnus]

What I've actually been really struggling with lately is a solid explanation for how magic works in a scientific sense. I don't mean in relation to the real world, I mean a more detailed reasoning for how magic operates beyond handwavium and 'the weave'. Every time I try to collate basic rules in order to form theories there's always more examples to consider and rules that seem to conflict.

I find that most explanations don't work when you look at the details, because D&D's spells are designed with IRL traditions, balance and fun in mind, not in-universe coherence.
(Just look at the prestidigitation spell. Like WTF, why are all of this effect together, and why would this list so varied even be an exhaustive list?)

Basically, if you want to achieve this, you will need either:
(1) To give up on the details, and find an explanation that doesn't match with the rules exactly.
(2) To have a giant "a wizard did it" or a variation of it somewhere. For example:
"Reality is some sort of giant simulation with a source code. Some devs let in the simulation (or the beta-testers hacked to add to the simulation) a set of cheat codes, that are now known as spells."

[JackPhoenix]

Let them.

My current homebrewed setting is very dying-Earth and post-future. Magic is not at all natural, and boils down to the cumulative fallout from numerous Clarkean events, experiments, systems, and the like that have happened at different times for different purposes over the eons. The closest thing the current magic-wielders and spellcasters have to understanding it all is the division into conventional schools. But those schools are imposed after the fact, at least in some cases.

There's a lot of nanotechnology and augmented reality going on.

Are you sure you aren't just playing Numenera?

[EggKookoo]

Are you sure you aren't just playing Numenera?

Yeah, it's not like dying Earth is anyone's original idea. I'm more inspired by Gene Wolfe than Monte Cook.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, it's not like dying Earth is anyone's original idea. First time I recall reading about it such that it stuck was in HG Wells' Time Machine.

I'm more inspired by Gene Wolfe than Monte Cook. I used to have a paperback collection of Clark Ashton Smith stories, but that seems to have gotten lost in a move. :smallfrown: Another pulp influence on D&D/RPGs. Wolfe's Book of the New Sun is actually on my Christmas list, we'll see if my wife got it for me. (I am on an SF kick these days)

[GiantOctopodes]

This is an inquiry mostly for DMs, but player input is of course welcome. My questions concern how magic operates within the fiction of your game, relative to how it operates in the game rules. Questions like:

• 1. Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• 2. Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• 3. Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• 4. As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?


Numbers added for ease of response.
1) Yes and no- it's a matter of knowledge. Druids and Clerics of Nature based dieties are cognizant of the differences between them, as are those who study the divine. Those individuals use the right terminology, and may gently correct someone who assumes and gets it wrong. To an average blacksmith, they would have no way of knowing what they encountered, it's all just magic, and they discuss results, not classes. It's not uncommon in my world for a Druid turning into a wolf to be mistaken for a Werewolf, if they do it in sight of a paranoid individual from an area which recently had trouble with werewolves, since that's what their experience is with that kind of effect, and the reality that it's a totally different thing is lost on them. Spellcasters will often be called the wrong thing by non-practitioners, likely using whatever verbiage they've encountered. The spellcaster leading a band of orcs could be called a shaman vs a cleric vs a druid vs a warlock vs a wizard, the way the PCs, being more knowledgeable than some, would know what it is would be because they know the spellcaster used control water, so it's got to be a wizard, cleric, or a druid, and there was mention of a spell book, so it's a wizard.

2) One could look at this as, can NPCs perform magic outside that which is defined in the PHB. Absolutely yes. I have a desert in my campaign world where the entire eastern side of it is encircled in a giant continual ring of blizzards. This is because a large portion of a nation of spellcasters, led primarily by genies, enacted rituals and set up towers to perpetuate that effect to contain a runaway race of trolls which were magically engineered. A cabal of spellcasters had designed trolls which are fueled by heat energy, and if they have enough, they split into two. Things got out of hand rather quickly, but they're incapacitated by exteme cold, so extreme measures were taken to prevent their spread throughout the world. Obviously none of that is in the PHB. I view the PHB as the starting point for magical effects, not the be all end all. By the same token, can PCs perform magic outside that which is defined in the PHB, or is it reserved for NPCs. And on that as well, I say absolutely yes. PCs can absolutely push the limits of what is possible, participate in or lead grand rituals, and achieve magical effects outside the scope of what's in the PHB. It requires research, power, and vision, but I have no qualms with a PC learning how to turn themselves into a lich, or perpetually freezing an entire city in time, or whatever else they want to get up to. Finally, are the rules different for NPCs vs PCs, well yeah. By RAW things like Legendary Actions already delineate NPCs vs PCs and allow NPCs to perform things outside of the normal rules and turn structure. I also can play more fast and loose with what kind of prep they did or what the specific effect of something is, since it doesn't need to be cleanly replicable. Obviously that should be done with caution, and keep in mind violations of normal turn structure and limits are Legendary, and shouldn't be applied willy nilly to all spellcasters of a NPC subtype, as an example.

3) I mess with PC magic *constantly*, but I do so BEFORE the attempt to use it and in a clearly defined manner. For example, Grease can be set on fire, and while it burns, creatures in the area of effect take 1d4 fire damage. That's both because it's logical to me (it's grease), it's fun (who doesn't love burning tar trap type effects) and it's interesting (flammable objects guaranteed to be alight by the end, and fire can be an interesting thing to deal with if it starts getting out of hand). Identify only costs 10GP, but it also only reveals effects which the creator of the object made no effort to hide, and may not work when attempting to identify spell effects created at a higher level than the spellcaster using identify is capable of, as otherwise it's both imho too powerful for a 1st level spell and too expensive for beginning adventurers to use. Animate Dead only working at Dawn or Dusk, when there is symbolic representation of a state of transition in the celestial alignments, would be potentially in scope for the kind of stuff I like to do, though I don't do that specifically. However, and this is key - someone studying that magic who is a practitioner should Know those things. I wouldn't have a PC try to use Animate Dead at noon and surprise them with "it fails, it can only be cast at night", as that feels arbitrary, unfair, and anti-fun. More likely, if i wanted to tie the creation of undead to the night, I would talk about the player with that ability between sessions, proposing a tweak to the spell, such that moving forward, undead created by Animate Dead have +1 HD if made at night, and -1 HD if made during the day, possibly with further bonuses or penalties depending on special days of the year, celestial alignment, phases of the moon, whatever. If the player thought it was fun and interesting, we would move forward with it on future casts. If they did not, I'd shelve the idea and possibly propose it on the next campaign. Either way, the key part is that the player should enter the casting of a spell knowing what's going to happen, and barring being in a wild magic area or some special circumstance, it should operate as the player expects. Wild magic zones, antimagic zones, and spells otherwise operating other than as expected should in my opinion be the extreme exception, not the rule.

4) My players are well aware that I consider the PHB a starting point, not a finished product, and that far more important to me than RAW is the Rule of Cool. Crazy blood magic, or someone who distills magic itself into liquid form before using it to power vaguely steampunky things, or other things well beyond what's delineated in there are all possible. Sometimes it'll be accessible to PCs, sometimes not, some spells work as written, some require checking my houserules and errata. If I find something is ending up as OP and acting as a detriment to the game rather than adding to it, it's normal and expected that I'll have an honest conversation with the player(s) impacted by any desired change, and we'll work something out, both mechanically and narratively. I'm not going to have the +5 Sword I shouldn't have given the player suddenly vanish in the night or the OP spell I shouldn't have approved that the player designed suddenly stop working as advertised without a conversation, but the entire game world and all elements in it, magical and otherwise, are a constant Work In Progress towards the goal of building a fun world for my players to adventure in and fun and interesting things for them to encounter and deal with. As such everything is on the table for changes or tweaks as needed in the interest of everyone's fun. That's my approach, my players seem to like it, it's certainly not for everyone.

Anyway, sorry to ramble on for so long, I've enjoyed everyone's responses and it's interesting to see such divergent viewpoints.

[Xervous]

snip

So it mostly boils down to exceptions having important reasons and players being made aware of exceptions they may immediately encounter. Talking with players about expectations is big, but not everyone seems to rate it so highly.

[RedMage125]

This is an inquiry mostly for DMs, but player input is of course welcome. My questions concern how magic operates within the fiction of your game, relative to how it operates in the game rules. Questions like:

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

I make these inquiries because I’m curious how common my approach to these things is. I try to reinforce, both by talking to players and through events in the gameplay, that magic is definitionally the realm of the strange, and that the magic that PCs themselves control will only ever represent a tiny slice of that unusual world.



In my world, yes. Below this is a spolier-block with regards to how each class' magic works. But, as others have said, those distinctions aren't always apparent to every observer. And there are some titles and appellations which leave things vague. A "Mage" might be a Wizard, a Sorcerer, or a Warlock. Or, to follow my fellow poster's example, a Shaman. Mechanically a Shaman is just as likely to be a Cleric, a Druid, a Warlock, Sorcerer, Wizard, or even an Eldritch Knight or a Paladin. Back in 4e, there was a Warden class. It was a Primal class, just like the Druid. In my world, Wardens ARE "druids". Members of the various Druid Groves (of which each one has an Archdruid) are usually either, even some of the Archdruids were Wardens, not members of the Druid class. In 5e, this role is filled with Ancients Paladins. They get Druidic as a bonus language, and are considered a part of Druidic Society. Other examples exist as well. "Swordmages" of the Elven tradition may be Wizards of the Bladesinger subclass, or they might be Eldritch Knights, or even Hexblades. You could even have two members of the same tradition with different classes. Your Bladesinger Wizard may have trained alongside his best friend and rival, who is an Eldritch Knight, mechanically. So I guess I'm somewhat between a "hard yes", and your view. I allow for maleability, but the default assumptions of the PHB are also true.


As far as Magical Theory, one of the things I use is that Bard magic is different from Sorcerer or Warlock magic drastically. Bards tap into the Echoes Of Creation, the lingering effects of the sounds of the world, and magic itself, being formed. Some Bards claim it was "sung" into existence, others perceive these echoes as the tones that the creation created, like the high-pitched ping of a drop of water striking a pond in a cave. At any rate, it is these echoes that Bards learn to tap in to, attune to, and replicate to a degree. The Seeker of the Song Prestige class in 3.5e was a great example of this, as they learn to more precisely replicate the actual forces and energies of that creation, instead of using those echoes to create distinct spell effects. These echoes are still dependent on "the Weave" (as Forgotten Realms terms it, in any other setting this would just be the flow of magic throughout the multiverse) in order to bring the effect into existence.

Other arcane casters also tap into the Weave. The best explanation for HOW they do it is to compare it to kids in school taking a test. Let's use a math test for the analogy. Wizards are the kids that studied the material and know to get the right answer by following the correct steps. Sorcerers just "know" the answers. They go by some instinct, natural knack for the material, and they can get the exact same answers as wizards, but cannot show their work, even for incredibly complex equations. Warlocks...they cheat. They made a shady deal in a back alley, and someone gave them the answers to the test. Some of the answers anyway.

Divine Magic uses the Weave to work, but the source for the knowledge of it, to include the proper incantations/hand movements, comes from an external source. For Clerics, this is easy. They either get it from an actual divine being of intelligence (a deity), or from the collective unconscious of all those who share similar beliefs (for deity-less Clerics, and the Clerics of quasi-agnostic settings like Eberron). Druids sometimes worship Nature Deities, and for them, their magic works like Clerics' does. Most druids, however, revere Nature as a force in and of itself. The same principle of the Collective Unconscious grants them the knowledge of their magic, too. This comes from other Druids, Fey, Primal Spirits, and even knowledge stored in the very bones of the earth, latent and waiting to be tapped. Rangers tap into this in the exact same manner.

Paladins also tap into the Collective Unconscious of Belief, for the actual knowledge of their spells, but the various editions of D&D have changed what a Paladin even is so much that it requires an edition-by-edition breakdown. Pre-3e paladins: Get their powers, to include their spells, from a devotion to righteousness. As we know that Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are observable, quantifiable, dispassionate cosmic forces in D&D, it is through alignment with the forces of Law and Good that the paladin receives her powers. The immunities, auras, and lay-on-hands powers are no different than the spells in that regard. If they ever strayed from alignment with the forces of Law and Good, to include even one act of intentionally committed evil, they lost the communion with those forces that granted them the powers. 3.x Paladins actually worked the same way, but COULD also get their powers and spells from a deity, much like a cleric. It is a common misconception that 3e Paladins got their powers from gods, I blame the 3.0 supplement Defenders of the Faith. 4e Paladins got their powers from the rituals that invested them as Paladins, same way Clerics worked in 4e. 5e Paladins, now that's a clincher, as they SEEM to be more in common with their pre-4e ancestors, but with no alignment restriction. From all appearances, it would seem that their Devotion to their Oath is what grants them their power. And the knowledge of spells likewise comes from a connection to that ephemeral Collective Unconscious shared by those with the same beliefs.

The Collective Unconscious Of Shared Belief is, by the way, why divine spellcasters of the same class all have the same spell lists. It's kind of based in Jungian principles and theories, but it perfectly explains how a Cleric can choose from ANY Cleric spell EVER when choosing his daily spell allotment.


They are more or less true. I usually have NPCs break the rules through rituals, or non-spell means, however. I prefer not to alter mechanics on the fly, unless I treat "able to cast 2 levelled spells in one round" as a specific unique ability that is unlikely to be duplicated often.
Almost never, no. Especially for extra restrictions, which I consider artificial. If I want to limit the use of a particular spell, I will straight-up restrict the spell itself, not when or how it can be cast. I do for magic items, however. Example, player's had a Cloak of Elevenkind. Then they took down a Displacer Beast, and rolled a nat 20 when skinning it (Survival check), thus producing a pelt of exceptional quality. I allowed them to turn the displacer beast's hide plus the elven cloak into a Cloak of Displacement.
I have much fewer house rules for 5e than I did for 3.5e. But I let all my payers know them in advance. Most RAW default assumptions are true or easily adaptable in my world, very little in terms of "restriction". I've got write-ups for each of the classes (and most subclasses) in regards to my world. But that's more how the class fits into my world. But, with very few exceptions, a good story trumps my default ruling, and I will consider relenting. Like I said, most Ancients paladins in my world have ties to Druidic Traditions (and some to Nature Deities). But you have a concept for a different kind of character, and I like it? You can make your character (but won't get the Druidic bonus language if your character isn't part of that society).

[Dr. Cliché]

1) Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
2) Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
3) Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
4) As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

1) Yes, there are acknowledged differences between the different types of magic. However, most 'common folk' within the world won't necessarily be able to tell the difference between the different types. Particularly with regard to the various arcane casters.

As to whether the differences are meaningful, that depends on the setting. Warlocks, for example, may be distrusted as devil-worshippers, with the point that some form pacts with non-devil entities being ignored or overlooked. What's more, a Warlock with a Book of Ancient Secrets could probably pass for a wholesome Wizard, at least in the company of those not familiar with the arcane arts.


2) If the PHB rules were ironclad, you wouldn't have magic items, golems etc. :smallwink:

Put simply, no, I will frequently allow NPCs to break the rules of magic in one way or another. This could be in breaking basic rules of magic (Concentrating on two spells at once, casting two non-Cantrip spells in the same turn etc.) or in having access to spells/magic that don't exist in any official book.

However, I will always make sure that there's an explanation for this (whether or not my players ever find out about it). I won't include a random NPC mage who can cast three spells per turn "just because".


3) If I'm adding additional requirements for spells, this is something I'd bring up right at the start of the game. Though as a general rule, no. As for messing with someone's magic, I might do this if they were suffering from some sort of curse or if they were in an area of Wild Magic, for example, but it's not something I'd do for no reason. Basically, it's something I'd want to confine either to a specific area (or encounter) or else, if it was a long-term effect, make it come up relatively infrequently.


4) Certainly. I will try and indicate by one means or other that there exists magic (and magic users) that are far beyond anything attainable by 'normal' magic. I think it can often be effective to show the effects of this magic long before the party encounters its user(s). e.g. have them come across a landscape transformed by magic in a way that's clearly beyond the abilities of any spell in the rulebook.




This is, of course, a D&D-specific iteration of the age-old argument between hard and soft magic systems in literature. The above philosophy is my attempt to retain the literary advantages of a mysterious and unexplained (“soft”) magic system in a tabletop game (rule-driven, and therefore "hard" by nature). Any commentary which is relevant to the debate of hard vs. soft magic is probably also relevant here.

Just a point but D&D magic is not hard. It is soft by definition.




Magic in D&D is generally too clean, consistent, and user-friendly for my liking, too much like a technology. It’s hard to sell magic as dangerous, miraculous, and unpredictable, when the game rules, in the interest of a smooth player experience, make most magic spells and objects safe, renewable, and replicable. I don’t think this is unique to D&D in specific: every roleplaying game with magic that I know of has, to some degree or another, sacrificed a good deal of the mystery behind magic for the sake of making it playable. (The best exception I can think of is Call of Cthulhu, which doesn't really count since it bends over backwards to emphasize that magic is primarily a tool for antagonists, and should not be used by PCs except in great need.) I try to compromise with that necessity via the sorts of decisions articulated in the bullet points above, but I am always curious how other people, with a similar leaning towards soft magic, strike a balance with the demands of the game rules.

This is something I agree with completely. I hate how toothless the magic is for its users.

Stuff like shapeshifting in particular seems like it should carry great risks, yet it seems built to be as trouble-free as possible.

[OldTrees1]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?
• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)
• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?

In my games:

The classes don't map 1:1 between the books and the world. We have a priest using sorcerer levels. However powers from the classes are commonly associated with their in world counterparts. Druids tend to have the ability to wildshape, but a particular druid might not. This is part of why the unarmored priest is using sorcerer levels instead of cleric.
NPC magicians can break the rules, but rarely. I slightly altered Contingency and Mirage Arcana for an ancient Hag.
No but sometimes enviromental factors adjust the outcome. Currently the plane they are on has the Paladin's Find Steed be an undead (skeletal horse) and Contact Other Plane is redirected to 1 of 20 individuals, each of which currently elaborates with a sentence following the 1 word answer. I have also allowed PCs to attempt high DC arcana checks to slightly alter spells.
Since the deviation is slight, I let the exceptions speak for themselves as being exceptions. I do mention OOC the exceptions as being exceptions around when they happen.

[Dr. Cliché]

What I've actually been really struggling with lately is a solid explanation for how magic works in a scientific sense. I don't mean in relation to the real world, I mean a more detailed reasoning for how magic operates beyond handwavium and 'the weave'. Every time I try to collate basic rules in order to form theories there's always more examples to consider and rules that seem to conflict.

This has been a bugbear for me as well.

However, I don't think it's a problem you could realistically fix without rewriting the entire D&D magic system. :smalltongue:

Otherwise, there are just too many internal inconsistencies.

Also, I just think the 'feel' of the magic is wrong. For example, it seems like only wizards should be using rigidly-defined spells, yet every class is shafted with them.

[EggKookoo]

Also, I just think the 'feel' of the magic is wrong. For example, it seems like only wizards should be using rigidly-defined spells, yet every class is shafted with them.

At the very least, I don't get why clerics and druids are prepared spellcasters rather than known spells classes. Preparing spells always seems to be the realm of "magic is a kind of arcane knowledge" classes like wizards and artificers.

If they want to give another class prepared spells, rangers could qualify. While the class is certainly nature-oriented similar to a druid, the ranger feels more craft-based and even a little MacGuyverish. Also, honestly I think arcane tricksters should prepare daily spells but maybe there's a deeper balance reason they don't want to do that with subclasses.

[J-H]

• Do the spellcasting character classes exist as acknowledged divisions in the world? Is the difference between the powers of a Wizard and those of a Druid meaningful to most people in the setting?

The difference is meaningful. Most NPCs won't think in terms of character classes, but instead of social roles. Each culture in my current campaign generally has access to only 1-2 types of spellcasters, based on their culture and inclinations. The hunter-gatherer folks have druids & rangers; the "we need every body and debuffs" have primarily necromancers (wizards); the priest-run dominant power has primarily clerics (with a varied spell list) and some wizards; the giants have sorcerers and bards...etc.

• Are the rules of magic as presented in the PHB ironclad, natural laws in force over every spellcaster in the game, or are they more narrowly interpreted as non-diegetic limits on what the player characters can and cannot do with magic? In other words, can NPC magicians break the rules that the PCs are bound by, by doing things like casting two leveled spells in one turn?
NPCs can do different things than player characters. High-level casters especially have to do this to stay relevant.

• Do you occasionally mess with the PC-end rules of magic, such as having a spell malfunction under unique circumstances, or imposing ritual requirements on a spell that aren’t there in the writeup? (e.g., Animate Dead can only be cast at night.)

No, BUT I only have one full caster (a healer cleric) in the party.

• As a general question pertaining to the above points, do you actively try to create the understanding in your players that magic in the world doesn’t conform neatly to the PHB rules which constrain their own characters?
They are aware that NPCs get different abilities than their class abilities, and that I homebrew many of the enemies they face.

[Mercurias]

As a player, I’ve discussed the narrative part of my character’s magic with my DM before.

I had a Wild Magic Sorcerer who was a street urchin and had no idea what his magic was. He just knew it was something he could do. They later learned it was the touch of a god of chaos, laid on him to upset the plans of other deities in order for him to literally disrupt fate. His magic was full of fits, starts, and sparks, and most of the time when spells with save effects failed, the DM fluffed it as the magic sparking out and transforming or sparking something magical in the area (like turning a goldfish in a tank neon green).

Likewise, I had a Cleric/Druid multi-class that I played as just being a generic hedge-witch who was the son of a hedge-witch and learned herbs, healing, and prayers from her in the same way she learned her craft from her mother. The only odd thing about him was that normally the craft was passed down exclusively to daughters. His magic involved crystals, prayer to his fertility goddess, rituals, and burning herbs. He also brewed potions of healing, and saw their creation both as part of his magic and as part of his religious practice. I tried to talk the DM into letting his self-made potions having, ah, side-effects suiting a fertility goddess, but that was politely and wisely turned down.

I guess what I’m saying is that players can always add their own flair so long as the DM is open to doing so.

[Telok]

Haven't gotten to run but all the games I've been in the PH and other book spells & magic rules were absolutely rigid for PCs, down to those being the only magics that PCs could do. PCs can't do anything that isn't explicitly allowed by the spell text. Sometimes additional restrictions got stuck on when DMs thought a spell was too powerful.

NPCs get whatever spells and magics the plot/story calls for. NPC wizards using sleight of hand to emulate sorcerer subtle spell, ability to do plot related magic rituals that aren't spells like a line of salt that demons can't pass, two concentration spells at once, that sort of stuff.

PC magic gets screwed with occasionally to semi-regularly. It always seems to be location based, a room, a dungeon, a forest clearing. Sometimes there's a hand wave of "a weird old obelesk" or "a magic ward you would have known if you cast identify on the fountain". Mostly it's "yeah, this room is antimagic just because, no way to know before you waste a spell".

[Stealthscout]

Many good answers so far. Numbered lists do help, though:

Are caster classed acknowledged? Ans: Yes, but most people care more about if they can trust you more than your type.
Are the spellcasting rules ironclad? Ans: By default, yes with noted exceptions.
First, places of power can affect entire groups of spells though arcane checks can describe them to you in advance.
Second, through research and money casters can learn tricks outside of the listed spells both for fun and customization (e.g. some extra damage with some cantrips, Charm Person can be upcast to work on humanoid-style undead). 'Time and money' limits what PCs can do with the rules because of plot but NPCs have much more time to learn tricks and can therefore 'break' the listed spells or rules. To some degree this is 'DM discussion' which also would favor NPC casters.
Third, I have been open to players messing with their spell formulae (e.g. 'can I modify destroy water to effectively ruin this vat of wine?'). This forces it into ritual territory and dice rolls made on the spot. You can't repeat a particular effect without spending the gold and time to figure it out 'right'. (see above)
Do you mess with PC spells? Ans: See the first part in last question. Otherwise, no. I can be a mean to them in so many ways but that's going too far.
Do you convey that magic isn't just the PHB? Ans: Yup. Even if you use modules there are always exceptions. I find the easiest way to do this is throw unique magical items at the PCs based on cantrips or 1st level spells. Another +1 sword? Boring. A mug that refills itself with rich apricot brandy that disappears once in your blood stream? Priceless.


I like to have magic be fun and flexible, but everyone at the table understands that you simply need a hard line when it comes to combat and exploration because this is a game. It also keeps the magic users from completely overpowering the non-magical players because magic is cewl. (sidenote: You can get other things with time and money that aren't magical).

The ability to research outside the PHB is also more realistic. Anybody can research fireball because it is pretty straightforward when you actually know enough to cast it. But, to make a fireball covered with your personal seal takes practice because that isn't the easiest way to pull off the effect.

Most NPC casters don't bother with more research because they are like people in the real world - lazy by default. PCs are different because they take more risks and learn the easy path faster as a result - you get levels and more spells but not game-changing tricks. Exceptional NPCs are those people who take a longer path and put the effort into doing more with it. They are the real important people in the end and change the world in ways the PCs cannot unless they decide to... become retired PCs and change the world the DM still controls.