How do you prefer your tabletop spell casters?

[Agrippa]

It's a simple enough sounding question with a great deal of controversy attatched. Are they universally foul degenerates hated by the populace at large who traffic in depraved acts? Perhaps nigh all powerful reality warpers who require the aid or blessing extradimensional beings? Maybe they're potent but still mortal spell casters able to perform miraclous feats with great effort, skill and experience under their own power? How about potent but still mortal spell casters who draw power from friendly or bound spirits or mystics who channel the very power of the planet or otherworldly realm?

So how do you like your mages?

[Erik Vale]

My preferences:
1. Mutants (Somewhat like the Mass Effect Biotics)
2. Conduits for another being, being able to use power for tasks in return (I.e Clerics and DnD Warlocks)
3. People who need to perform very specific rituals which are potentially lethal but extremely powerful.
4. .... I know there is another, I just can't remember right now.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The specifics... that depends on the genre.

What I can say though is I by default dislike magic systems where it's *impossible* to have a spellcaster who isn't horrible/insane, like how WH40K handles Psykers; They're either baby-devouring fanatics who worship the gods of chaos, or they're baby-devouring fanatics who worship the God-Emperor.

I can also say that, for games, you need a magic system that's sharply defined as to what it can and can't do, and works consistently within this framework. Video games tend to be much worse offenders than tabletop RPGs: Know how in many fantasy games NPCs get lots of cool spells to use in cutscenes that you never get to learn and use yourself? Yeah, major pet peeve of mine. This is why I dislike the whole "Magic should be mysterious!" nonsense: It simply does not work when magic is in the hands of the PCs. Give something to a PC, they're going to want to use it. Let the PCs use it, and it's no longer mysterious. All attempts to "fix" this situation inevitably fail horribly; The only solution that works is to say "No, you can't use magic. Only NPCs get to do that." and that's basically the same as not having a magic system at all.

As a rule I also prefer to play spellcasters whose magic works through objective, impersonal forces, rather than being granted by some form of deity or spirit. I just have this inner contempt for people who are given their power (and can have this taken away at any moment should they displease their master) instead of actually, you know, earning it. This is just a personal thing though.

Finally, in general I prefer interpretive magic systems where you can make up the effect you want on the spot (subject to the limits of what the magic is capable of, obviously) over super-crunchy systems where you're limited to a selection of pre-defined spell effects.



But the most important part, the only part that's non-negotiable, is the magic needs to help define both the world and the characters in it. If you could snip out the magic system and leave the world mostly unchanged, it's unsatisfactory. The best magic systems are the ones so entwined with the setting that the world itself stops making sense if you try to remove or change how magic works.

[ZeroNumerous]

As a rule I also prefer to play spellcasters whose magic works through objective, impersonal forces, rather than being granted by some form of deity or spirit. I just have this inner contempt for people who are given their power (and can have this taken away at any moment should they displease their master) instead of actually, you know, earning it. This is just a personal thing though.

I think you're really not giving clerics(and other monastic-type deifacted spellcasters) enough credit here. Earning power as a cleric-type spellcaster requires dedicating years of your life(potentially all of them) to devoutly obeying laws/rules set down by your divine benefactor. Generally it also involves spending hours praying, observing daily rituals for decades, trying to find new converts, and keeping the faith alive among members of your deity's flock. Sure, they don't attain their power personally, but most cleric-type spellcasters spend a substantial amount of their time attaining their power. It's not any different than a wizard who spends decades locked away in a tower pouring over dusty old tomes.

It's a lot less "I joined the church and suddenly became Cleric McSpellcaster, Lord of the Miracles." and more "I spent decades of my life in service to my deity, and was rewarded the ability to use magic as a result."

And that's ignoring the work that goes into keeping that power, or the rigors and hardship involved in a monastic lifestyle.

That said: I have to agree with the sentiment. I despise spellcasters who just gain power via birth or "fate" and much prefer spellcasters who have worked hard to circumvent the laws of reality.

[Ashtagon]

The specifics... that depends on the genre.

What I can say though is I by default dislike magic systems where it's *impossible* to have a spellcaster who isn't horrible/insane, like how WH40K handles Psykers; They're either baby-devouring fanatics who worship the gods of chaos, or they're baby-devouring fanatics who worship the God-Emperor.

Agree. It should definitely be possible to have a caster who isn't necessarily insane, for a "heroic" campaign.

That said, both WFRP and WH40K are crapsack worlds, and a key conceit of them both is that anything not utterly mundane by modern civilisation's sensibilities is rather messed up at best. It's a feature of the setting. It's the same with Call of Cthulhu. These three are not "heroic" settings, so in that regard it makes sense for casters to be pretty messed up individuals.

I can also say that, for games, you need a magic system that's sharply defined as to what it can and can't do, and works consistently within this framework. Video games tend to be much worse offenders than tabletop RPGs: Know how in many fantasy games NPCs get lots of cool spells to use in cutscenes that you never get to learn and use yourself? Yeah, major pet peeve of mine. This is why I dislike the whole "Magic should be mysterious!" nonsense: It simply does not work when magic is in the hands of the PCs. Give something to a PC, they're going to want to use it. Let the PCs use it, and it's no longer mysterious. All attempts to "fix" this situation inevitably fail horribly; The only solution that works is to say "No, you can't use magic. Only NPCs get to do that." and that's basically the same as not having a magic system at all.

I strongly disagree here. There's magic the PCs know, which should not be all that mysterious (although it may still be uncontrollable, the degree of uncontrollability is known). And there is magic that only NPCs (so far) know; this second category includes all found and purchased magic items. Unless the PCs personally test a purchased magic item, they have only the vendor's word for it that it is what he said it was. Caveat emptor. And the contents of an NPC's spell books and what he has memorised are not known to the players, except through what effects are manifest when those spells are cast.

[Craft (Cheese)]

That said, both WFRP and WH40K are crapsack worlds, and a key conceit of them both is that anything not utterly mundane by modern civilisation's sensibilities is rather messed up at best. It's a feature of the setting. It's the same with Call of Cthulhu. These three are not "heroic" settings, so in that regard it makes sense for casters to be pretty messed up individuals.

Everyone in those settings is a pretty messed up individual. And anyone who isn't won't be anymore before the end of the first session. These settings can still work in their own way, and I only particularly mind if magic-users are singled out somehow. "Sorcerers are always villains, heroes are always knights" is a trope I just can't stand.

I strongly disagree here. There's magic the PCs know, which should not be all that mysterious (although it may still be uncontrollable, the degree of uncontrollability is known). And there is magic that only NPCs (so far) know; this second category includes all found and purchased magic items. Unless the PCs personally test a purchased magic item, they have only the vendor's word for it that it is what he said it was. Caveat emptor. And the contents of an NPC's spell books and what he has memorised are not known to the players, except through what effects are manifest when those spells are cast.

Any magic the NPCs have, the PCs should be capable of getting. You might not know what spells that NPC wizard has prepared, but if you've studied the PHB you know what spells he could have prepared. Giving NPCs some homebrewed spells purely for the sake of catching the PCs off guard without a good reason is, in my view, distasteful.

It's a lot less "I joined the church and suddenly became Cleric McSpellcaster, Lord of the Miracles." and more "I spent decades of my life in service to my deity, and was rewarded the ability to use magic as a result."

This is very personal, but I feel this isn't the same. Yeah clerics have to do a lot of work, but this work consists of persuading a deity to grant them power. The persuasion might not be easy, but I don't really think it counts the same way as getting the power yourself does. It's the same reason I can't respect politicians.

[Ashtagon]

Any magic the NPCs have, the PCs should be capable of getting. You might not know what spells that NPC wizard has prepared, but if you've studied the PHB you know what spells he could have prepared. Giving NPCs some homebrewed spells purely for the sake of catching the PCs off guard without a good reason is, in my view, distasteful.

Now you're meta-gaming. The players may well have studied the PHB. The characters only know that this is a wizard of the amber college, which is known for specialising in spells that deal with shape-shifting and animalistic urges.

At a meta-game level, they could reasonably expect there are homebrew "amber college" spells flying around, and should they later play an amber college wizard, they might even gain access to those homebrew spells if they can find someone to teach these secrets. On the other hand, they can be pretty sure that any homebrew spell this NPC has will fall into a certain specialist field.

Oh yeah, in my campaign, those two free spells per level a wizard gets? That represents going back to their mentor at the magic college and being given them, chosen by the player from a shortlist of what is available from his mentor.

[Totally Guy]

I like interesting costs for magic. The cost is always the most interesting part.

It means that you can say "Do I do the spell to get what I want and risk a consequence or is this thing not worth that risk?". If that question isn't being asked then that aspect is not an interesting decision on the part of that character and player.

The worst magic systems for me are the ones where it's a no brainer and you just say "why wouldn't I try to get what at want?" and do it.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Now you're meta-gaming. The players may well have studied the PHB. The characters only know that this is a wizard of the amber college, which is known for specialising in spells that deal with shape-shifting and animalistic urges.

How is expecting PCs and NPCs to work by the same (in-setting, if not mechanical) rules meta-gaming?

[Ashtagon]

How is expecting PCs and NPCs to work by the same (in-setting, if not mechanical) rules meta-gaming?

Because it's not a competitive game of GM vs. players.

[mistformsquirrl]

For me it all depends on the setting to be honest.

My personal fantasy setting has a world with a liquid mercury core. Said core 'leaks' throughout the world creating leylines which is what powers magic. There's an order of magic users who tap directly into the core itself, using it to do things like temporarily becoming liquid metal, forming creatures of liquid metal, or just casting spells of the stuff.

< . .> It's still a WIP.

[PersonMan]

Because it's not a competitive game of GM vs. players.

DnD is not competitive -> it's metagaming to want NPCs and PCs to use the same rules.

I don't see how you get from A to B. That's like saying "it's metagaming to want monsters to have hit points".

Perhaps you have a different definition of metagaming? I wouldn't qualify either as that, myself.

[Ashtagon]

Basically, I don't see it as a requirement that PCs and NPCs should ever have to play by the same rules. Similar rules that interact with each other, of course. But an identical playing field? Of course not! If players can know exactly what they are up against because they looked it up, that removes some story potential.

[PersonMan]

Basically, I don't see it as a requirement that PCs and NPCs should ever have to play by the same rules. Similar rules that interact with each other, of course. But an identical playing field? Of course not! If players can know exactly what they are up against because they looked it up, that removes some story potential.

Why does 'NPCs and PCs follow the same rules' lead to 'players look up the stats of all their enemies'?

[Ashtagon]

Why does 'NPCs and PCs follow the same rules' lead to 'players look up the stats of all their enemies'?

Why not read up on the earlier posts I have been responding to to find out?

Please excuse me if I don't respond to any further pointy questions in this thread. However, I will probably respond to in-depth comments, real life permitting.

[Morithias]

The same way I like all my other characters, or people in general. With virtue and kindness.

It's not hard to make a caster who is likeable to me. Want to know the secret to making them likeable? Make them someone people WANT TO ACTUALLY BE AROUND.

Main reason why I never understood Wolverine's popularity. He's a jerk.

[PersonMan]

Why not read up on the earlier posts I have been responding to to find out?

Please excuse me if I don't respond to any further pointy questions in this thread. However, I will probably respond to in-depth comments, real life permitting.

I'm trying to understand how you logic is working, for me you seem to be jumping from A to L with no connection between the two. I've looked at the posts you've mentioned, but I don't see what you mean.

There have been lines drawn between 'same rules' and 'potential knowledge of the enemy's powers', but the connection between 'players can find out, with research' and 'players will research this and apply the knowledge (which is metagaming)' don't seem to exist, for me.

[Dsurion]

With a sword in their gullets.

[jindra34]

Limited. They may be able to do a whole bunch of things but there really should be only one small area where they can do things quickly and reliably. And the further away they get the more troublesome it gets for them to use.

[Hjolnai]

I like the idea that spellcasters impose some form of order over an innately chaotic force; the reason for all the diligent study isn't just so they can form particular effects, but also so that they don't make a mistake. If someone tries some magic at the limits of their capabilities, the consequences are quite likely to get them killed (But no guarantees, otherwise it would hardly be chaotic).

This also provides for a counterbalance for the tendency for magic to be too powerful; yes, spellcasters can create effects which mundane people cannot match (save through learning magic themselves), but they take tremendous risks in doing so. If you always use the most complex and powerful magics you can, your group is in nearly as much danger from you as from enemies - and you won't last long.

I also think magic should be accessible to anyone who can comprehend it - only intelligence is a deciding factor (Plus the luck to survive the learning process, and diligence to study hard).

[Jay R]

The word "spellcaster" includes a leprechaun granting a wish, Gandalf throwing a fireball, Galadriel looking into her mirror, Sauron forging the One Ring, a Hogwarts first year learning to levitate a feather, Mr. Wizard sending Tutor Turtle to the past, Dr. Frankenstein creating a monster, Dracula hypnotizing somebody, Lucy healing a Narnian with her cordial, Circe turning men into animals, Iduna giving the Norse Gods the apples of eternal life, Moses parting the Red Sea, a priest praying for a miracle, or even a D&D thief or fighter wielding the right magic weapon.

There is no "one way" these should all be handled.

[Aux-Ash]

I have two approaches to spellcasters that I'm fond of.

The first one is with Dangerous Magic. That there's inherent risks to casting and that the more power you try to reach, the greater risk you take. This limitation keep magicians among us mortals. That only insanely lucky (and clever) magicians can rely on their magic to grant them absolute power. I suppose there's the "Greek Tragedy" charm to the whole thing, aspire for the power of gods and their wrath will rain down on you.

The other approach is Eldricht (or if you prefer Arcane) Mysteries. That magic, while awesome, is a very clausical and conditional thing. Relying on very stringent requirements to pull off. A ring of salt as a requirement for wards against evil. Wizards being the seventh son of a seventh son. Needing a name, a lock of hair, a drop of blood and the shadow of a cat to cast a curse on someone. That Magicians are the scholars of said mysteries. Magic is the loopholes (rather than the Admin tools) of the universe. Carefully set up cases where the laws of the universe makes an exception. That the way to true power is through single minded devotion to studying these lores (and thus not having the time to learn much else).

I find both approaches very entertaining and interesting.

[GolemsVoice]

I don't really care about the sources or limitations of magic, but I want my magic users to be able to actually cast spells without risking life and limb for a light spell.
I have no objections to magic being costly, at least when it's powerful. But if I have the potential to cripple myself everytime I do what my class/archetype is all about, it just makes me unwilling to even try it. For the same reasons people object to fumble rules, because warriors, trained people who are supposed to be good at swinging swords, have the potential to injure themselves every time they pick up their weapon and beat somebody with it.

[Agrippa]

After waiting awhile to post I'd like to throw my two cents in. I don't care for the idea of magic as innately evil but it does have a twisted and corrupt side, mostly dealing with mind control or harming/mutilating the soul. Most necromancy including mindless undead creating spells wouldn't count. While I have no trouble with inherent gifts or acting as conduits of power I prefer mages who gain their powers from study and intellect. Also spells require concious effort and can't simply be cast be "accident".

[TheCountAlucard]

Magic's not evil; it's just big and powerful. Thus, its users tend to get swept up in the big and powerful. Sorcery carries with it a certain form of enlightenment, an understanding of the essence of the world and how to manipulate it; with it, one may call demons to service across the endless planes, rain down nuclear fire, or pull up the very bones of the earth to shape ramparts.

This doesn't necessarily make the sorcerer better than others (at least, it shouldn't ); after all, it's not the only thing that's big and powerful.

[Knaight]

My preferences vary highly by genre and setting, but there have been a few things that worked out fairly well. Among the varieties that have worked better for me are these:

Near Scientific Magic - Spellcasting is not some innate ability only few ever possess, nor is it necessarily mysterious. Anyone could do it, provided that they are capable of learning what it takes. In practice, this usually ends up being some form of ritual magic enacted through drawn or carved patterns where a very strong knowledge of geometry, scientific experimentation, and sometimes a few other disciplines (e.g. chemistry) along with having studied their application to magic is all it takes.

Innate Magic, With Other Access - Spellcasting is an innate ability, and some people are simply better at it than others. That isn't to say that training, discipline, and such don't help, but they are limited in effect. However, there are ways to cheat the system, that are much more accessible to the desperate. Maybe if you die there is a chance you will come back regardless, and those that do that gain more magical power. Suicide then becomes an option for a desperate power grab, something you're much more likely to see in a death cult or among a seriously threatened group than among most. Maybe you can gain more magical power through the creation of intermediaries, where you don't have the power directly, but that undead creature you created with the souls of several prominent mages is bound to you, and their magic outclasses your own quite a bit. Maybe you just need access to inherently magical materials, and finding a bunch of cinnabar to refine (or jade, or silver) will let you cheat the system. It varies. However, I usually stack the deck so that the desperate, those with few scruples, and those with a lot of followers have much better access. Note that PCs rarely fall into more than one of these categories.

Binding - Broadly speaking, humans don't have magic. There might be a few exceptions, but even then it's because of non-human influence. On the other hand, there are magical creatures, and there are ways of accessing their power. Their power can be siphoned into items, or it can be bound to a person, or whatever else. However, those that are more sentient than a plant are innately connected to serious ethical issues, with those of near human intellect generally considered off limits. Again, the scrupulous are at a disadvantage, though going for a power grab has some major risks - not only are there ways for spirits to break bindings, and depending on how they've been treated they may well try to do so extremely violently, but there is the potiential for friends, family, possessed people who screwed up a binding under the control of spirits who are really opposed to this whole "humans using them as magic batteries" concept out to demonstrate their displeasure with the sword, etc.

There is also a second class of people - those who have been willingly given power by spirits. Generally, they fit in the Magical Gifts category below.

Magical Gifts - Actual spell casting is immensely rare, and even then it is probably limited in scope and lacking in precision. That said, there are individual abilities that pop up periodically, which are magical in origin. Sometimes they are due to birth, sometimes they are given by some sort of non-human power, and sometimes an object is just so spectacularly well crafted, or one achieves such perfection with a skill that they transcend into magic. Sometimes humans don't have this at all, but magical gifts are still present in other creatures

Mixes - I often mix these. Some settings just have one, with limited scope within that one. Others have several sources going around at once, often in conjunct. Generally speaking, settings that I favor for high-roleplaying groups are much more limited in magic than settings I favor for low-roleplaying groups. Then there is the non-fantasy subset, which sees about equal use with both.

[The LOBster]

It depends on the mages. I don't like to think of Sorcerers, Clerics, Wizards and Druids as being hated by the public - Good-aligned Wizards are usually very good if somewhat eccentric from holing themselves up in their towers to learn the arcane arts (think Dumbledore); good Sorcerers are a little more down-to-earth, especially once they get control over their spells; good Druids are usually people who are a little suspicious of outsiders, but decent folk; and Good Clerics are basically either badass preachers or Good Shepherds who strive to do the right thing by others; helping those in need, especially. Warlocks, on the other hand... If they made an Infernal or Abyssal Pact, I can't see them as anything but evil, but the others allow for all sorts of alignments.

[awa]

personally Ive got no problem with the secret spells the pcs have either no or reduced availability to. second edition was absolutely loaded with them.

in fact i kinda like the idea that the various orders of magic users have distinctive spells. it would make the various groups of wizards feel different and kinda makes sense in game as well. if spells can be created wouldn't it make sense for people to make custom spells and then try and prevent their rivals from gaining them.

now on to the main topic for me how magic should function is based on what i want it to do in the setting. ive played high magic settings where their were no mundane characters and normal people were completely useless.

and ive played games were magic is all ritual based and 1 min is considered a short casting time and trying to rely entirely on magic was asking to die.

[Nyes the Dark]

I think (using D&D classes) wizards should be more like scientists. They spend years learning how the laws work, to gain even a little power over it. I think they should be treated as scientists, so maybe some people respect them, but others think they're tampering with the natural order and should leave well enough alone.

Clerics should have to work for years with their god(s) to gain their powers. They should be respected members of the community.

I think sorcerers should have natural talent, but have to spend long periods of time tempering and mastering it to use it in any form. They should be distrusted, but not neccessarily hated or hunted.

Warlocks gain powers from supernatural beings, and should be treated as such.

In general, mage classes should be strong, but limited in some way. They need very limited spells, so that they can't just destroy everything with no need for warrior classes. Balance is vital.

[Jeff the Green]

I think (using D&D classes) wizards should be more like scientists. They spend years learning how the laws work, to gain even a little power over it. I think they should be treated as scientists, so maybe some people respect them, but others think they're tampering with the natural order and should leave well enough alone.

More engineers than scientists, but yeah.

I like the idea of a sort of rivalry between wizards and sorcerers (or wizards and warlocks or thaumaturgists and evocators, etc.). One group has to work for long years to learn magic, but can produce complex and subtle effects while the other is more innate and basically about raw power. Or maybe like it is in David and Leigh Eddings' Belgariad with one form of magic that is innate and boundless and another that has restricted effects but anyone can learn.