Thoughts on Magic in D&D

[Everyman]

I've been thinking a lot lately about game mechanics, and a thought hit me about D&D: magic has no consequence. I knew that magic was mechanically a fancy way of saying "No" to the rules for a while, but it only truly struck me how odd a choice that was after working on a few game designs of my own. I mean, there are loads of literary tropes of how beings have been punished for taping into such power. For example, some poor bastard underestimates his own control over something more powerful than himself, and suddenly has to face the consequences when it fails to heed him (or worse, turns on him). If there is no threat in using magic within D&D, why wouldn't people use it?

Now before I go further, I want it made perfectly clear that I love playing the caster. Being able to tell physics to shut up and sit down while I go off and kill a catgirl is about one of the only reasons I play. Even the non-magical characters I play mess with magic, if only by purchasing relics or potions and using them in haphazard ways. I think magic brings a lot to the table (literally, if you game classically), so I want my thoughts to be considered with that in mind.

Magic shouldn't be free. Even when the cleric has his power handed to him by his deity on a silver platter, he should still be wary of abusing it. There should be a cost or risk associated with using magic, and I don't mean the material components (which is a whole 'nother issue I don't like, but that's for another thread). When a caster taps into their magic, I think it would be good for failure (and thereby consequence) to be hanging over their head. When the fighter swings his sword at a golem, he's worried about the AC. Even the perfect warrior who is almost guaranteed to hit that magic number has to worry about that natural one. Why not the wizard? Why not the cleric?

Would it bother you all if you had to make some sort of roll when casting a spell? Even something as contrived as "Caster level + d20 versus X" would at least introduce the threat of failure, and thereby create a bit of tension. A caster couldn't just rely on saying "First, I'll forcecage the suckers, and then cast cloudkill". No, instead they may have to work with "First, I'll try and forcecage those guys. If it works, I'm a cloudkill away from victory. If I fail, I'm an arrow volley away from death.

What are your thoughts on the idea? Would it make the game more interesting, or perhaps bog it down with the extra rolls? Could it even (*gasp*) level the playing field between casters and non-casters in a fight, even if only a bit?
-Tarkahn

PS. One last thought occured to me. If a fighter can critically fail an attack roll, adding in a failure chance for magic means that logically a chance of critical failure should occur for magic. That just opens up a lot of possibilities, doesn't it? Magic backlash sounds like something that could really liven up the game...

[Starsinger]

The problem with giving magic a cost, is that if the cost is too great, the players won't use it. And if the players aren't using it, why bother including it? Of course, I'm of the mind that NPCs aren't bound to the same rules as PCs and this colors my opinion on it.

[Egiam]

If you're planning to homebrew a system, read Eragon for ideas.

[Everyman]

The problem with giving magic a cost, is that if the cost is too great, the players won't use it. And if the players aren't using it, why bother including it? Of course, I'm of the mind that NPCs aren't bound to the same rules as PCs and this colors my opinion on it.

That is an excellent point. However, I still feel like having no cost is worse. If there is no reason not to use magic, then why don't all settings eventually turn into (to borrow forum terms) a "Tippy Universe"?

Perhaps if the risk was there, but not so large as to make magic unappealing. I would agree that a 50/50 chance of casting correctly would be unacceptable, but would something like...an 80% chance of success be bad? What if it could improve to 90% over time?

If you're planning to homebrew a system, read Eragon for ideas

Not quite what my intention is here. While I do have a homemade system in mind, I'm really just trying to get a gauge for what everyone's feelings are. Thanks for the reference, though. Been meaning to get a copy of it and read up. Here's to another incentive, eh?

[Starsinger]

That is an excellent point. However, I still feel like having no cost is worse. If there is no reason not to use magic, then why don't all settings eventually turn into (to borrow forum terms) a "Tippy Universe"?

Perhaps if the risk was there, but not so large as to make magic unappealing.

I like to strip utility magic away anyways, but another part of "Tippy Universe" not happening in my games is that I tend to make magic require a Gift for it. I usually refer to it as the Blessing of Mana (from Star Ocean). So not everyoen can be a caster if they want to.

[Shpadoinkle]

Eh... On one hand, I generally like the idea of anything that helps level off the power levels of casters vs. noncasters. On the other hand, spells and skill checks (attack rolls are essentially the same thing as a skill check) simply aren't the same thing- if you fail a skill/attack roll, you can try it again next round up to another 14,399 times that same day.

You can't cast all day, though. A level 20 wizard or sorcerer could blow through all his spells for the day in around five minutes (assuming none of thier spells have a casting time of greater than one full round and none are Quickened).

So, if you're going to add in skill checks for casting spells, I think you either need to give casters more spells per day (never thought I'd be saying that), or make failure a fairly low possibility- anything more than 15% would be pretty much unacceptable to me as a player, and even 15% is pushing the limit of what I'd put up with.

[AmberVael]

I think that magic needs one of two things:

1) More limitations
2) More cost and less limitations.

If something has more limitations- like, say, if I am a caster who can only use buffs, have so many limitations active at a time, and have to take a greater amount of time to cast them, then their level of power goes drastically down, even if they still have the same spells.

However, as the magic system is right now, more cost would make more sense (at least, that's what I think). However... I don't like using Gold as a cost, and using XP as a cost similarly seems to be a poor idea.

[Everyman]

EDIT: Addressed to Starsinger...
Good idea. It at least gives a rational for why magic doesn't rule the world.

Let me ask you this before I sign off tonight: What if the threat was something like "The spell fails to expend" when you goof? That way, the caster doesn't waste resources all the time (except of course their action for that round). I personally would like to see something a bit more cinematic than that, but perhaps that is better suited for a critical failure.

[Egiam]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "Tippy universe"?

[Oslecamo]

However, as the magic system is right now, more cost would make more sense (at least, that's what I think). However... I don't like using Gold as a cost, and using XP as a cost similarly seems to be a poor idea.

It already exists.

It's called spell slots.

Or mana. Or power points. Or whatever you want to call them.

If you think the spells don't cost enough, cut down the number of spells per day the can do. Let's see if the wizard/druid/cleric still laugh at anyone when they can only cast one spell of each level per day(and in the case of the druid, one wildshape per day also).

[Stupendous_Man]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "Tippy universe"?

The presence of magic is taken to the logical extreme with world altering effects, ie, no more famine and better hygiene.

[AmberVael]

It already exists.

It's called spell slots.

Or mana. Or power points. Or whatever you want to call them.

If you think the spells don't cost enough, cut down the number of spells per day the can do. Let's see if the wizard/druid/cleric still laugh at anyone when they can only cast one spell of each level per day(and in the case of the druid, one wildshape per day also).

That's not a cost. That's a limitation. Sure, you have to spend a slot to cast it each day, but it comes right back the next day.

[kjones]

If you think the spells don't cost enough, cut down the number of spells per day the can do. Let's see if the wizard/druid/cleric still laugh at anyone when they can only cast one spell of each level per day(and in the case of the druid, one wildshape per day also).

Then nobody plays wizards, druids, or clerics. Congratulations, you cured your headache by cutting off your head.

I remember once seeing a homebrew magic user called the Bio-Mage who used his own life force to cast spells - he could cast lots of spells, but each casting had a physical toll, and he could easily kill himself if he wasn't careful. Who knows if it was balanced or not, but it seemed like a cool idea. You should be able to search for it around here.

[Starsinger]

Then nobody plays wizards, druids, or clerics. Congratulations, you cured your headache by cutting off your head.

I remember once seeing a homebrew magic user called the Bio-Mage who used his own life force to cast spells - he could cast lots of spells, but each casting had a physical toll, and he could easily kill himself if he wasn't careful. Who knows if it was balanced or not, but it seemed like a cool idea. You should be able to search for it around here.

The problem with that, is it would most likely end up with a player casting spells willy nilly anyways, afterall once the campaign is over, most players would stop caring about the fact that their character would die a month after the BBEG bit the dust.

[Jack_Simth]

I've been thinking a lot lately about game mechanics, and a thought hit me about D&D: magic has no consequence. I knew that magic was mechanically a fancy way of saying "No" to the rules for a while, but it only truly struck me how odd a choice that was after working on a few game designs of my own. I mean, there are loads of literary tropes of how beings have been punished for taping into such power. For example, some poor bastard underestimates his own control over something more powerful than himself, and suddenly has to face the consequences when it fails to heed him (or worse, turns on him). If there is no threat in using magic within D&D, why wouldn't people use it?

There are consequences for some magic - Contact Other Plane, Planar Binding, and a handful of others.

Now before I go further, I want it made perfectly clear that I love playing the caster. Being able to tell physics to shut up and sit down while I go off and kill a catgirl is about one of the only reasons I play. Even the non-magical characters I play mess with magic, if only by purchasing relics or potions and using them in haphazard ways. I think magic brings a lot to the table (literally, if you game classically), so I want my thoughts to be considered with that in mind.

Magic shouldn't be free. Even when the cleric has his power handed to him by his deity on a silver platter, he should still be wary of abusing it. There should be a cost or risk associated with using magic, and I don't mean the material components (which is a whole 'nother issue I don't like, but that's for another thread). When a caster taps into their magic, I think it would be good for failure (and thereby consequence) to be hanging over their head. When the fighter swings his sword at a golem, he's worried about the AC. Even the perfect warrior who is almost guaranteed to hit that magic number has to worry about that natural one. Why not the wizard? Why not the cleric?

Would it bother you all if you had to make some sort of roll when casting a spell? Even something as contrived as "Caster level + d20 versus X" would at least introduce the threat of failure, and thereby create a bit of tension. A caster couldn't just rely on saying "First, I'll forcecage the suckers, and then cast cloudkill". No, instead they may have to work with "First, I'll try and forcecage those guys. If it works, I'm a cloudkill away from victory. If I fail, I'm an arrow volley away from death.

For most spells, you do. Or rather, the target(s) do. When the fighter takes a swing, there's one or two rolls to resolve (attack and damage). When a Wizard casts a Fireball, there's two or three rolls involved (save, damage, SR penetration). More, if the Wizard is under threat and casts defensively. Some trade the saving throw for an attack roll.

There's a couple of exceptions, spells that require no roll to succeed ... but those are almost always one of:
1) Buff spells (helps you or your allies, does not directly affect your opponents)
2) Combat Control (wall spells, generally; again, does not directly affect your opponents)
3) Information gathering only (Discern Location, for example; you can also put Sending here)

The spells with no save, attack roll, or SR that do not fit one of the above criteria? Yeah, those are usually broken (as are several specific spells).

Really, all you need to do is make sure every spell that does not fit 1, 2, or 3 above has either a save or an attack roll (or both), and you're mostly set (except for a few specific spells).

What are your thoughts on the idea? Would it make the game more interesting, or perhaps bog it down with the extra rolls? Could it even (*gasp*) level the playing field between casters and non-casters in a fight, even if only a bit?
-Tarkahn

My thoughts? Extra rolls for the "roll to succeed". Consequences were mostly removed as a deliberate design choice in the transition for 2nd edition to 3rd edition. If magic sucks, PC's aren't going to use it, generally.

PS. One last thought occured to me. If a fighter can critically fail an attack roll, adding in a failure chance for magic means that logically a chance of critical failure should occur for magic. That just opens up a lot of possibilities, doesn't it? Magic backlash sounds like something that could really liven up the game...

Critical failures (fumbles) were likewise removed from the game (somewhere between 2nd and 3.5, not sure exactly where). They've just got auto-failures on the natural-1... and most offensive spells also have an "auto-failure" ... but that's more the "auto-success" for the defender's save.

[kjones]

The problem with that, is it would most likely end up with a player casting spells willy nilly anyways, afterall once the campaign is over, most players would stop caring about the fact that their character would die a month after the BBEG bit the dust.

Yeah, that always struck me as a problem, but what if the penalties were short-term instead of long-term? Keep casting spells, but that last one might just kill you.

I'm just throwing ideas around, because I've always liked the idea of magic having some kind of personal cost, but I've never been able to figure out a good way to represent it mechanically.

[Jack_Simth]

Yeah, that always struck me as a problem, but what if the penalties were short-term instead of long-term? Keep casting spells, but that last one might just kill you.

I'm just throwing ideas around, because I've always liked the idea of magic having some kind of personal cost, but I've never been able to figure out a good way to represent it mechanically.

Nonlethal damage, perhaps? Annoying enough that you'll not be using it lightly, mild enough that you'll still use it.

[Reinboom]

Yeah, that always struck me as a problem, but what if the penalties were short-term instead of long-term? Keep casting spells, but that last one might just kill you.

I'm just throwing ideas around, because I've always liked the idea of magic having some kind of personal cost, but I've never been able to figure out a good way to represent it mechanically.

The concept is neat, however, I wouldn't carry it further than a novel.
Setting a significant personal cost causes the issue of a player being unable (or too paranoid and thus unable) to use their class abilities. A player doesn't choose to be a magic user to shoot a crossbow.

Really, I've always been of the opinion that magic should be less tolling, more consistent, and weaker. Also, more subtle.

It also must be mentioned that who is playing matters/what is being played. A life force draining mage might make a great BBEG - giving the interesting effect of the witches in Stardust - but it's not so interesting for a player.

[Oslecamo]

Then nobody plays wizards, druids, or clerics. Congratulations, you cured your headache by cutting off your head.

No, because one of the reasons people say casters are the pwrnz is that at medium-high levels they can easily go around with a dozen buffs over themselves, cast something usefull every battle and still have spells left.

By reducing the number of spells per day of the caster, they're forced to think carefully every turn if a situation is worthy their slots

They can still transform that greater demon into a sheep, but they can't go around doing it to every minion of the greater demon.

I remember once seeing a homebrew magic user called the Bio-Mage who used his own life force to cast spells - he could cast lots of spells, but each casting had a physical toll, and he could easily kill himself if he wasn't careful. Who knows if it was balanced or not, but it seemed like a cool idea. You should be able to search for it around here.

Except when you notice that in D&D is very easy to bypass such kind of penalties. Or simply ignore them. Who cares if you're at one life if your oponent is defeated? Just drink some potions of healing and you're ready for another go.

Vael:What's the other possibility? Want to go back to 2ed where spells demanded permanent payments? Crafting a magic sword demands one point of contitution. Casting time stop drains several years of your life.

Permanent costs aren't really much of a great idea. Either nobody uses them, or people simply go nova in a flash of glorious death to finish off their quest.

You can always make spell slots take a longer time to regenerate if you think one day is too little. But making magic energy non regenerable at all means the rest of the party must finish the campaign as quickly as possible or see the caster become useless because he can't do any more magic.

[Starsinger]

The concept is neat, however, I wouldn't carry it further than a novel.
Setting a significant personal cost causes the issue of a player being unable (or too paranoid and thus unable) to use their class abilities. A player doesn't choose to be a magic user to shoot a crossbow.

Really, I've always been of the opinion that magic should be less tolling, more consistent, and weaker. Also, more subtle.

It also must be mentioned that who is playing matters/what is being played. A life force draining mage might make a great BBEG - giving the interesting effect of the witches in Stardust - but it's not so interesting for a player.

Very true, especially the underlined part. Which is why I whole-heartedly support Warlocks, Reserve Feats, 4e At-wills, and the Pathfinder at-will type abilities that most mage types get.

As for the witches in Stardust, you're right, it does fuel into that, and the whole draining someone else's life force to keep yourself young and powerful etc that you can find in a few myths and fairy tales.

Also, SweetRein, how'd that little battle go?

[holywhippet]

I remember once seeing a homebrew magic user called the Bio-Mage who used his own life force to cast spells - he could cast lots of spells, but each casting had a physical toll, and he could easily kill himself if he wasn't careful. Who knows if it was balanced or not, but it seemed like a cool idea. You should be able to search for it around here.

I've seen this in the old PC game Betrayal at Krondor. Magic using types spent their health to cast spells. You could rest for a turn during a fight to regain a little bit of health if you had to.

That's not a cost. That's a limitation. Sure, you have to spend a slot to cast it each day, but it comes right back the next day.

Yes, but the cost of being a wizard or sorcerer is low hit points. When you run out of spells and magical items, all you have is whatever lowly melee skils you've developed.

One system that has a "cost" to "magic" is Dark Heresy. Pskyers have to make a power roll in order to use one of their powers. If any of the power dice come up 9, they make a d100 roll to see what side effect occurs. Many of these are just window dressing, but a few are bad and if you roll high enough you have to make a d100 roll on the "bad side effects" table. These vary from bad, to really bad to instantly lethal.

For D&D, the old wild magic surges might be a good equivalent.

[kjones]

No, because one of the reasons people say casters are the pwrnz is that at medium-high levels they can easily go around with a dozen buffs over themselves, cast something usefull every battle and still have spells left.

By reducing the number of spells per day of the caster, they're forced to think carefully every turn if a situation is worthy their

They can still transform that greater demon into a sheep, but they can't go around

I think you got cut off there... The problem is, as Rein said above, that a wizard should never be reduced to shooting a crossbow - that's not fun for anyone.

One solution to this is to take the route of 4th Edition, where casters have powers they can use at-will, just like any other class. But your solution would just mean that casters are awesome in brief bursts, before being reduced to nothingness. This is what playing a wizard at low levels is like, especially in 1st and 2nd edition, and it kind of sucked.

[Starsinger]

I think you got cut off there... The problem is, as Rein said above, that a wizard should never be reduced to shooting a crossbow - that's not fun for anyone.

One solution to this is to take the route of 4th Edition, where casters have powers they can use at-will, just like any other class. But your solution would just mean that casters are awesome in brief bursts, before being reduced to nothingness. This is what playing a wizard at low levels is like, especially in 1st and 2nd edition, and it kind of sucked.

Pathfinder does (did?) it too!

[AmberVael]

Vael:What's the other possibility? Want to go back to 2ed where spells demanded permanent payments? Crafting a magic sword demands one point of contitution. Casting time stop drains several years of your life.

Permanent costs aren't really much of a great idea. Either nobody uses them, or people simply go nova in a flash of glorious death to finish off their quest.

You can always make spell slots take a longer time to regenerate if you think one day is too little. But making magic energy non regenerable at all means the rest of the party must finish the campaign as quickly as possible or see the caster become useless because he can't do any more magic.

Just because it is non regenerating doesn't mean you can't gain it back. Example: XP and GP. They just don't come back automatically. You have to earn it.

However, I do agree. Permanent costs are difficult to use in D&D, which is why I more often go with my other idea- more limitations.

[Matthew]

I think you got cut off there... The problem is, as Rein said above, that a wizard should never be reduced to shooting a crossbow - that's not fun for anyone.

I dunno about that; to some extent it must depend on your expectations of what the class offers. The AD&D elf fighter/magician as a choice tended to offset some of that perception, I think. The other side of it depends on the emphasis placed on combat as the primary encounter form. I used to play an elf magician who (by special dispensation from the game master) could use the long sword and long bow, and he was always fun to play, but never really used the weapons past level one or two. These things do tend to be more subjective than "it's not fun".

[Oslecamo]

I think you got cut off there... The problem is, as Rein said above, that a wizard should never be reduced to shooting a crossbow - that's not fun for anyone.

Now I disagree with this. Eventually, the game must put the players in positions where their main ability doesn't cut it and they must improvise.

Fighters will find enemies out of melee reach and will have to pull out their bows/javelins. Or drink a potion of flying.

Rogues will find their mobility crippled and have to face their oponents whitout dirty tricks. Or drink some potion of escape.

Clerics will find themselves whitout healing, and have to protect the bleeding guys the old fashinoed way. Or churn down a potion of healing down their throats.

And the wizard will find itself whitout mana/spell slots and have to pull out some nonmagicl weapon to keep fighting.

This even happens in 4e. Ever faced a group of ranged kobolds in higher ground while there was a path towards them that demanded several acrobatic checks to pass, plus traps on the way, and you are the party's fighter? It was tough. It was dirty. I got to negatives two times. And when I finally got in melee range only one kobold was left. But hell it was epic anyway, falling and geting up several times, while tossing whatever I could at the kobolds to help soften them up.

Just because the wizard was forced to pull out his crossbow doesn't mean he stoped being awesome. It just means he needs to work a little harder for that.

Don't remember Gandalf showing his quartertaff-fu in LOTR?

[Grail]

I am working on turning 3.5 into a classless system, and the way I'm working magic requires a focus of some sort (holy symbol, wand, staff, rod, whatever) and a spellbook (prayerbook or ritual book for Clerics/Druids). Then the caster needs to make a Spellcraft check to cast the spell.

Divine Spells still use Wisdom for DC's etc, Arcane uses Charisma. So now, Divine Spellcasters will need Wisdom + Intelligence and Arcane will need Charisma + Intelligence.

Then, ontop of that spells deal Non-Lethal damage to the caster.

To balance this out, Spellcasters do not have to memorize spells. They can freely cast any spell that they have in their book, as long as they make the DC and suffer the NL damage.

So far, IMNSHO, it looks the goods.

[Reinboom]

-snip-

This is true, however, it shouldn't be (in my opinion) a feature of the system itself, just an ability to handle such.
Antimagic Fields, surrounding the caster in a fashion as to make casting difficult, and the sort are decent enough to force situations like this. However, most of the situations you labeled can be escaped/recovered from.
"Crap, can't use magic. That's what I do though... oh well, best use this contingency plan til i can situate myself in a way as to use magic again."
"Crap, can't use my sword. That's what I do though... oh well, best use this contingency plan til I can get myself a new sword again."
etc.

(I must emphasize, with all this, I do not much like 2e's casting, or 3.5e by extension. Or even 4e, really... D&D's magic doesn't satisfy me. =P)
On the O.P.'s idea:
I wouldn't be too fond of it, personally. I tend to play magic users in order to be able to have utilitarian effects that I can rely on consistently happening as to be able to tactically effect the battle. Or do neat things outside of battle that is reliable.
I like being to say "I can" more than "I might" with such situations. I don't play fighters because of this.
This isn't so much a power thing for me either, I refuse to use most Save or Lose/Die effects, with no effecting back up either (I don't like Fireball much either, I don't do much killing at all, really).

[Oslecamo]

(I must emphasize, with all this, I do not much like 2e's casting, or 3.5e by extension. Or even 4e, really... D&D's magic doesn't satisfy me. =P)

Sooo, what system's magic rules satisfies you? The limited number of spells per period of time, I must say, seems to be the most popular, used in almost every computer game out there. You don't see that many games where the player takes damage to use spells.

[Starsinger]

Sooo, what system's magic rules satisfies you? The limited number of spells per period of time, I must say, seems to be the most popular, used in almost every computer game out there.

I like MP systems, preferably the one in Rifts, but the question wasn't really aimed at me...

You don't see that many games where the player takes damage to use spells.

Paladin's Quest used your HP instead of MP...