tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post8698737780290816131..comments2024-03-23T08:21:07.075-07:00Comments on Points of Light: 5 Problems With "Magic" In Dungeons & DragonsDavid Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-68723159802390295562021-11-04T19:40:50.592-07:002021-11-04T19:40:50.592-07:00“And it's a paper and pencils based system, so...“And it's a paper and pencils based system, so you have to forgive the fact that defined spell effects and spell slots don't represent real world fatigue any more than a given couple of hit points will represent a punctured spleen as opposed to a nasty rug burn.”<br /><br />No one said it must represent “real world fatigue”. Where the hell are you getting this from? How are you conflating real world anything with having harmful, imaginary magic, cause imaginary harm?<br /><br />You basically answered your own question: if hit point loss can represent virtually any type of harm, then casting spells can simply cause hit point damage. Simple, and it's what I essentially did with my game.<br /><br />“If you're looking for physics and real world complexity, or something that equates closely to a storytelling narrative, you're simply not going to find it short of a video game or book/movie respectively.”<br /><br />How is wanting magic to make sense in context of a game the same as wanting “physics and real world complexity”? As if video games, books, and movies have an inherent adherence to physics and real world complexity.<br /><br />But your entire statement is complete and utter bullshit, as I was able to resolve ALL of these issues with my own RPG.<br /><br />“The whole point of tabletop RPG is to have a simplistic mechanical framework that is fleshed out with imagination.”<br /><br />Yeah, tell that to the incredibly complex RPGs like Shadowrun. Why do you think a “simplistic mechanical framework” cannot resolve one or more of these issues? Mine did, and it's pretty damned simple.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-87745826096352822862021-11-04T19:40:29.660-07:002021-11-04T19:40:29.660-07:00“TBH, this article is along the lines of "Why...“TBH, this article is along the lines of "Why don't books written in 1850 compare to movies made in 2021?"”<br /><br />TBH you sound like a millennial. Not just for abbreviating “to be honest”, but for using it at all, suggesting that you're normally dishonest, so you have to preface specific statements to let people know that in this case, you're being honest.<br /><br />And if you're using it as a filler phrase...why? You posting this comment wasn't on any sort of timer. No one was waiting, watching you for a response. You had all the time in the world!<br /><br />Anyway: tell me how criticizing a mechanic that has largely remained unnecessarily static for over 40 years, the equivalent to comparing not only two completely different forms of entertainment, but across a time span of over a century and a half.<br /><br />Your statement also implies that modern movies are somehow inherently superior to books because, what...they're new? I can't think of a single film in 2021 that I've actually enjoyed (assuming I've even watched one). I can't even name a movie from 2021.<br /><br />To be fair, I can't definitely name any books from the 1850s, either, but I can name some pretty old ones. I've also read some older books, and plenty have been far more entertaining than film from this decade.<br /><br />“Jaded by the development of role playing "technology" over the past decades, it's easy to point to Basic D&D, AD&D, etc and say "Wow, it was so primitive."”<br /><br />Who's jaded? Who said it was “primitive”? My issues are: it doesn't make any sense, every class uses essentially the exact same mechanics, the flavor isn't supported by the mechanics, and it's assumed to be constantly in play.<br /><br />How are ANY of those rooted in it being “primitive”? And did you miss the parts where I criticized 5th Edition directly? <br /><br />“Yes, because they came FIRST.”<br /><br />OD&D did. And maybe some variants or later editions also came before other RPGs. But, again, I'm not criticizing the first edition or so. I'm criticizing the mechanics, which have gone largely unchanged for decades.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-54765699440714490162021-11-03T15:01:56.681-07:002021-11-03T15:01:56.681-07:00TBH, this article is along the lines of "Why ...TBH, this article is along the lines of "Why don't books written in 1850 compare to movies made in 2021?" Jaded by the development of role playing "technology" over the past decades, it's easy to point to Basic D&D, AD&D, etc and say "Wow, it was so primitive." Yes, because they came FIRST. And it's a paper and pencils based system, so you have to forgive the fact that defined spell effects and spell slots don't represent real world fatigue any more than a given couple of hit points will represent a punctured spleen as opposed to a nasty rug burn. If you're looking for physics and real world complexity, or something that equates closely to a storytelling narrative, you're simply not going to find it short of a video game or book/movie respectively. The whole point of tabletop RPG is to have a simplistic mechanical framework that is fleshed out with imagination.Murasakihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12258559337592337100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-38611058821080824142021-05-08T10:43:48.263-07:002021-05-08T10:43:48.263-07:00“And after all, as a tradition in game design, it ...“And after all, as a tradition in game design, it can be a tradition in the worlds.”<br /><br />I am not sure what you mean, here, but it sounds like you're saying that the rules from a purely game mechanics point of view say it works this way, therefore it can work that way “in-game”. I agree that the magic CAN work that way, but that that doesn't mean it can be EXPLAINED in a satisfactory way in-game.<br /><br />Which means it is bad mechanic, as you could achieve similar effects with a more “true” Vancian system, and it would make sense in-game.<br /><br />“The wizards were taught and it was for them that the axiom would pack energy, as it is envisioned by the system. And for example, using the optional rule from the DM book with spell points, I told the spellcasters to allocate their spell points into slots each time.”<br /><br />Sounds cyclical and arbitrary: the game says it works this way, so it just works this way. <br /><br /><br />“In the book for the AD&D 2ed system, Spells and Magic, where a system with spell points was introduced, there was such a thing as a free magic cell. This was a spell slot that allowed you to cast any spell that a mage had. The explanation in point 2 works here as well. As well as the optional rule, I allowed spellcasters to memorize certain spells, like they did in the 3.x system, for a fraction of the cost.”<br /><br />A “free magic cell” weakens the whole thing even further. Why just one “cell”?<br /><br />“The ritual incantations in the 5e make sense, since they simply don’t make sense to give those in combat. And if you have a great desire, you can simply say that any spell can be ritualized if you wish, but I'm afraid that the whole game may break a little.”<br /><br />Nothing was explained, here. How come some spells can be cast as rituals? What is the criteria for doing so?David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-1107084704346992662021-05-08T10:43:37.336-07:002021-05-08T10:43:37.336-07:00“Each slot of spells is a switch that has free ban...“Each slot of spells is a switch that has free bandwidth. As the skill of the caster increases, there are more such switches in his body / soul.”<br /><br />Ie, higher level wizards have more slots to play with. This right here is not an issue. The issue is specifically that the slots are divided into levels, you cannot combine lower level slots to make a higher level slot, and if you use a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell any excess levels are wasted.<br /><br />“The spells themselves in 5E are nothing more than a prism for energy that enters the caster's mind.”<br /><br />So, the spells are a construct that shapes energy into something. Okay, but that doesn't address the leveled slots and how they interact with each other.<br />David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-54240680396338955122021-05-07T09:30:25.385-07:002021-05-07T09:30:25.385-07:00It's a bit late, but I'd like to explain t...It's a bit late, but I'd like to explain the lore of how the spell slots work. I have identified several explanations for myself:<br />1) Each slot of spells is a switch that has free bandwidth. As the skill of the caster increases, there are more such switches in his body / soul. The spells themselves in 5E are nothing more than a prism for energy that enters the caster's mind. If earlier the transformed energy was locked in the body, now it is enough to pass the energy through the prism in order to interact with the fabric of magic.<br />2) And after all, as a tradition in game design, it can be a tradition in the worlds. The wizards were taught and it was for them that the <br />axiom would pack energy, as it is envisioned by the system.And for example, using the optional rule from the DM book with spell points, I told the spellcasters to allocate their spell points into slots each time.<br />3) In the book for the AD&D 2ed system, Spells and Magic, where a system with spell points was introduced, there was such a thing as a free magic cell. This was a spell slot that allowed you to cast any spell that a mage had. The explanation in point 2 works here as well. As well as the optional rule, I allowed spellcasters to memorize certain spells, like they did in the 3.x system, for a fraction of the cost.<br />The ritual incantations in the 5e make sense, since they simply don’t make sense to give those in combat. And if you have a great desire, you can simply say that any spell can be ritualized if you wish, but I'm afraid that the whole game may break a little.Zervahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05835973949761700354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-34118541444998401462019-01-31T19:33:18.054-08:002019-01-31T19:33:18.054-08:00Does it divvy up spellslots by level?Does it divvy up spellslots by level?David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-16601982884692353412019-01-29T09:16:10.462-08:002019-01-29T09:16:10.462-08:00Have Dungeon Crawl Classics style of magic and you...Have Dungeon Crawl Classics style of magic and your problem is solved completelyAQuebmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08709817832681566970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-39903025674007329612018-04-29T14:29:13.447-07:002018-04-29T14:29:13.447-07:00There's a flavor disconnect, yes, but as of ye...There's a flavor disconnect, yes, but as of yet no one has been able to create flavor linked to the mechanics that makes sense.<br /><br />The biggest hurdle seems to be spells with levels and spell slots with levels: you can put a 1st-level spell in a 9th-level spell slot, but there's nothing left over (as in, you don't have an 8th-level or even another 1st-level slot left over), and you can't combine all your 1st-level slot into even a single 2nd-level slot.<br /><br />So, why? Why is a wizard's brain apparently divided into leveled sectors that are only kind of incompatible? Some people have suggested slots represent energy packets, but this limitation rules that out. It just comes across as something kept around for tradition's sake, which isn't good enough for me.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-23567627001781113352018-04-29T01:24:57.941-07:002018-04-29T01:24:57.941-07:00People who read this and somewhat the author miss ...People who read this and somewhat the author miss that it is the disconnect between the fluff of the system and mechanics of the DnD systems that is problem. If fundamentals of the system mechanics were justified as much as possible then it would fine to have spell slots, spells level etc. People saying if you want wild then look at this system are missing the point DnD 5 says magic is strange and unreliable but it is not- it undercuts itself. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065356693962310189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-69865070163961800312018-03-10T23:37:59.355-08:002018-03-10T23:37:59.355-08:00“By default, the system does make sense.”
No it d...“By default, the system does make sense.”<br /><br />No it doesn’t.<br /><br />“By default, the game assumes you are playing in the forgotten realms where magic and its laws are tied to the weave which is tied to the goddess of magic.”<br /><br />It still doesn’t make sense. Also, only maybe 5th Edition makes that assumption. Prior editions did not, but aside from 4th Edition were still running with a nonsense-pseudo-Vancian system.<br /><br />“She literally dictate the laws of magic.”<br /><br />It still doesn’t make sense, and that’s only in Forgotten Realms: magic still operates precisely the same in not-Forgotten Realms.<br /><br />“Why does it work like this?”<br /><br />Because Gygax set this up 40 years ago and for some reason didn’t bother to make sense of it all. He very easily could have done an actual Vancian system that makes sense, but didn’t and I have no idea why.<br /><br />“Because Mystra decided so, of cause it's arbitrary. She is lawful Neutral, so likely she wants magic to not be unstable and chaotic.”<br /><br />Mystra didn’t make the rules, Gygax set things up and D&D has more or less stuck by the pseudo-Vancian system for over 40 years. <br /><br />But, sure, let’s pretend that Mystra is the reason magic operates the way it is and that she isn’t an imaginary entity that didn’t actually write the rules: what does this have to do with the magic system not making sense? How would running with an ACTUALLY Vancian system made it any less stable or more chaotic? For that matter, how would going with a spell-point system result in that?<br /><br />“It's also in her best interest to make sure magic users don't get too powerful after what happened to her predecessor.”<br /><br />Maybe you didn’t play 2nd or 3rd Edition, but magic worked almost completely the same way then, too (contrary to what you’re trying to claim, spellcasters have also gotten incrementally more powerful with each edition). Again though: how would an actually Vancian system allow spellcasters to get “too powerful” (whatever that means)? How would spell points do that?<br /><br />“All magic draw on the weave, divine casters are no exception, they just interact with it through a different channel so of cause they all cast the same.”<br /><br />D&D magic has been mostly unchanged, except for 4th Edition. This might surprise you to learn that Forgotten Realms isn’t the only official D&D campaign setting: you’ve got Mystara, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, Eberron, and so on, and magic works precisely the same. You can’t hide behind Mystra’s skirts and pretend that the magic system MAGICALLY makes sense.<br /><br />“There likely is an explanation for why certain spells are rituals and others are not in game.”<br /><br />Yeah, the designers realized that most players don’t bother prepping x spells, so made them usable on the fly without bothering to consider whether this made any sense at all, probably because all the D&D playtesters were happy to have a barely-tweaked 3rd Edition by another name: why make a great game when good will sell to people that bought all the previous editions, anyway?<br /><br />“Magic is similar to science in the world of dnd, spells can be discovered or created, that's why some spells are named after people.”<br /><br />No shit?<br /><br />“But wotc didn't bother with one because we wouldn't understand it or wouldn't care because we're not arcanists.”<br /><br />The staff at Wizards of the Coast are not actual wizards. It’s not that we wouldn’t understand or care about why some spells are rituals, it’s that the bullshit explanation is probably as mundane as “game balance”, plus some combination of “we’re just going to play it safe and do simplified 3rd Edition” and a lack of creativity.<br />David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-91674268792013676712018-03-10T17:53:14.108-08:002018-03-10T17:53:14.108-08:00By default, the system does make sense. By default...By default, the system does make sense. By default, the game assumes you are playing in the forgotten realms where magic and its laws are tied to the weave which is tied to the goddess of magic. She literally dictate the laws of magic. Why does it work like this? Because Mystra decided so, of cause it's arbitrary. She is lawful Neutral, so likely she wants magic to not be unstable and chaotic. It's also in her best interest to make sure magic users don't get too powerful after what happened to her predecessor. All magic draw on the weave, divine casters are no exception, they just interact with it through a different channel so of cause they all cast the same. There likely is an explanation for why certain spells are rituals and others are not in game. Magic is similar to science in the world of dnd, spells can be discovered or created, that's why some spells are named after people. But wotc didn't bother with one because we wouldn't understand it or wouldn't care because we're not arcanists. Much like how most people don't give a shit about why integration finds you the area bound by the graph and the x axis, they're just happy with "it works".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-68010999830629684862018-02-20T07:57:13.613-08:002018-02-20T07:57:13.613-08:00nothing about D&D magic ever makes sense espec...nothing about D&D magic ever makes sense especially when one considers that the novels in the settings never reflect the game system at all. They don't memorize and lose spells. They are fatigued after usage which doesn't even factor in to the system at all. A character can have a fire ball spell but not know how to magically light a candle. One should be a prerequisite for the otherAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01601085029404268753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-77198658981589998282017-11-07T15:29:14.926-08:002017-11-07T15:29:14.926-08:00Magic in D&D is a microcosm for the reason I d...Magic in D&D is a microcosm for the reason I don't really like D&D/Pathfinder: its rules tell you nothing of the world the characters inhabit, as you've explained. While this makes it portable (which is why we have half a dozen settings for every edition of D&D), it prevents flavor and role-playing (god forbid we have that) from getting baked into the rulebooks (why *do* Arcane, Divine, and Primal spellcasters all play the same if their power sources are supposed to be *substantially* different?).<br /><br />Compare/contrast with (I'm not read up on many tabletops with magic systems, so this isn't the best counterpoint case) the Warhammer 40k RPGs. A Psyker can spend XP to learn "spells", then cast them whenever they please. However, every time they do, they run the risk of triggering Psychic Phenomena. The exact mechanical circumstances for this change from game to game, but the gist is the same: the more power you dump into a spell, the more likely you are to cause a Phenomenon, thereby alerting everyone with a few dozen meters there's a Psyker doing Psyker stuff around. And even if no one's around to notice, things like spontaneous rains of blood and localized earthquakes tend to be inconvenient and just plain disturbing. If you get *really* unlucky, you run afoul of the Perils of the Warp, which range from you getting knocked out to dealing damage to everyone around you (most likely your allies) to you getting dragged kicking and screaming into the Warp, never to be seen again.<br /><br />So, yes, you can sit around using telekinesis to do things you're too lazy to do yourself or read everyone's mind rather than bother to engage in conversation with them. There's absolutely nothing mechanical or narrative stopping you. However, every time you do, you run the very real risk of inadvertently killing lots of people, especially yourself, with an unbound Daemon. That rather neatly captures the life of a Psyker.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04907795900179320228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-16960885691338700432017-08-19T15:18:45.755-07:002017-08-19T15:18:45.755-07:003. Sure. Check out this one for issues I have with...3. Sure. Check out this one for issues I have with bards: <br />https://daegames.blogspot.com/2014/07/5th-edition-uninspired-bard.html<br /><br />There are other problems with the game, but before I could get around to them/rather than just blog about them I made my own game that addresses them, and does all the stuff I wish D&D would have done a long time ago.<br /><br />In I think 1st Edition D&D women did get a penalty to Strength (which made sense because women on average are weaker than men), but I'm guessing Gary or whoever removed that because it's frankly not that big of a deal.<br /><br />But, sure, you can explain it that way if you want, but why don't you explain D&D magic in a way that makes sense, since that's the point of the article?<br /><br />4. I have no idea what you're referring to here. Yeah, I say that the designers come across as lazy, but what books and terms are you talking about?<br /><br />Since I say that in the section on spell slots, all I can say is that I've read the D&D books and I've read Dying Earth: D&D uses at best a pseudo-Vancian magic system that doesn't make any sense at all, while Dying Earth's magic system does make sense.<br /><br />For our D&Dish thing I actually made a Vancomancer class for people that prefer that sort of magic. It was very easy (you can store x spells per level, takes 10 mins to prep them, effects are based on level), and there's no reason why WotC couldn't have done that except for, well, "tradition/nostalgia".<br /><br />This blog post isn’t about my preference, it’s about D&D magic not making any sense, because if it DID make sense then I frankly wouldn’t have a problem with it. So, again, why don’t you explain D&D magic in a way that makes sense?David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-72873482047870832412017-08-19T15:18:32.458-07:002017-08-19T15:18:32.458-07:00@Anon:
1. Are you saying that a magic system can...@Anon: <br /><br />1. Are you saying that a magic system cannot both be "balanced" and make sense in-game?<br /><br />Because there are magic systems that use spell points and drain and so on. The Dying Earth has you cast spells, load them into your head, and release them later (the magic system D&D allegedly uses). You can also cast them right out of the book, and there are no leveled slots or per-day limitations.<br /><br />They make more sense but are still “balanced” (whatever that means: I guess you could say in those games wizards don’t end up being ultimate god characters that can do everything, including ignoring the whole hp thing and kill/banish/remove things with a single action).<br /><br />In our D&Dish game we used a random drain mechanic for wizards and sorcerers. Makes sense, and none of the wizard/sorcerer players have complained that they're too good or bad. We also use other magic systems for other characters, because it never made sense for wizards, clerics, paladins, bards, etc to all use the exact same magic system.<br /><br />2. I disagree. All Gary had to do was make a magic system that made sense (such as using actual Vancian magic) and explain this to the authors. If people wanted to change it for other settings, they could tweak it and work on an explanation that also makes sense. And if it didn't make sense? Oh well, too bad, try again.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-47908683218091651782017-08-19T01:56:03.469-07:002017-08-19T01:56:03.469-07:00Point-by-point for efficacy:
1. System is a cataly...Point-by-point for efficacy:<br />1. System is a catalyst for gaming/storytelling. Means to an end, not end in itself. Magic system is built exclusively for balance purposes. A point which you mention but never really acknowledge. It is similarly pointless to argue that Infinity engine did not calculate THACO in BG the same way as p&p version. <br />2. It would be hard to give "ingame" explanation for magic system due to huge amount of d&d source books and fiction books. Every author had his vision how exactly magic works. It works differently in FR, DL, Planescape, Al Qadim and even in same-world fiction it works differently because it was written by different authors and storywise they needed it to work the way it did. One of high points of 5e is to not rain on any of the campaign settings from previous editions... a prudent decision both from marketing and fan perspective. Check any other magic system, if it was written by a multitude of authors during a long period of time.. it is going to have consistency problems (Star Wars, WoD - any setting, GURPS - differences for edition to edition and setting to setting although SJG has the best proofreaders ever, kudos to them!, 7th Sea, etc.)<br />3. You don't have problems with other internal consistency rules? Action surge n/day? Why only n per day? Are you exhausted? If so, why can fighter run and fight effectively as before surging. Barbarian's Rage, Druid's Shapeshift, Bard's Inspiration. The list goes on through every sing class and every single archetype. There are many more internal consistency problems. For instance, female humans do not have penalty to STR score. This is never explained in any game system or setting (and rightly so). Everybody knows why there is no numeric STR difference in human males and females and no one needs and in game explanation even though it can fit in one (in game) + one (additional explanation) sentence: "Gods of Kvern(Reg.) have deemed fit that human females be as strong as their male counterparts. Female actin and myosin fibers work more efficiently giving them same power input with less muscle cross-section area. Sounds stupid... I (mostly) agree bit it is a viable explanation.<br />4. You sir are rude. Calling designers lazy while you yourself can't be bothered to read a few paragraphs of a few books. In two hours time you can torrent few of those books in ebook format, use Ctr+f option to search a few well defined keywords and read no more then 10-15 pocket book pages all in all. (Btw, this is completely legal under fair use laws since you use book excerpts for educational purposes... so torrent away!). No need to inform us that "you don't have time to read bad written fiction".<br /><br />If you really wanted an (idea of) in game explanation you should have formulated you blog post as a question and not as an criticism based entirely on your preference. The former makes you look wise (intelligent?) and the later only makes you look petulant.<br /><br />Take care!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-66069614404442194482017-04-13T10:18:01.723-07:002017-04-13T10:18:01.723-07:00@Jmz: For wizards, we're doing a random Mana c...@Jmz: For wizards, we're doing a random Mana cost, which takes away from your hit points if you run out of Mana. So you can't reliably plot your magic reserves, and if you try to link up a bunch of magic talents for a big-ass spell you might knock yourself out, first.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-41057637324358672312017-04-13T10:16:20.781-07:002017-04-13T10:16:20.781-07:00@Jmz: When you say skill, does that mean you have ...@Jmz: When you say skill, does that mean you have to roll for it to work each time?<br /><br />We're doing something with talent trees: if you want to learn Fireball, you gotta learn Burning Hands and Scorching Ray, first, and if you want to learn Phantasmal Killer you gotta trek down the Illusionist tree for a bit.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-26543956635658373982017-04-08T21:17:30.835-07:002017-04-08T21:17:30.835-07:00From my experience, GURPS magic is dead simple. Sk...From my experience, GURPS magic is dead simple. Skills are learned as a bonus to an attribute, and there are only four attributes. Almost all magic is based on Intelligence. If you learn a really basic skill and you learn it to competency, you can learn spells that are related but more advanced...so it's a skill tree. <br />If you want to cast a certain spell, you have to learn all the spells that come before it in the tree.Jmz_th_Fishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06499050543953573005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-76307799427263426142017-04-08T20:35:50.160-07:002017-04-08T20:35:50.160-07:00I much prefer "roll a nat 1 and things get re...I much prefer "roll a nat 1 and things get really weird."Jmz_th_Fishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06499050543953573005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-50779054324570806542017-03-30T16:33:18.389-07:002017-03-30T16:33:18.389-07:00@Josh: Depending on the edition, I could see doing...@Josh: Depending on the edition, I could see doing something like that, and maybe beefing up lower level spells to make them more useful.<br /><br />Could also see giving a wizard some sort of point/slot system, so they could choose to have a number of lower level spells become spell-like/supernatural abilities, or fewer high-level ones.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-27714539919876692762017-03-29T09:32:03.299-07:002017-03-29T09:32:03.299-07:00I've felt like you do David, that magic in dnd...I've felt like you do David, that magic in dnd was forced to follow game rules over narrative logic. My best experience with framing magic with logical rules was with a DM that broke up magic into 3 categories: 1-3rd level spells, 4th-6th, and 7th-9th. As your wizard leveled up your low level spells would become spell- like abilities and eventually supernatural abilities (he told me he based it on the shadowcaster class). As your mage got more powerful, he would only have to memorize (need components & spellbook) to cast high lvl spells and magic missle has been memorized so much that you only need to sleep to remember it. It simplified how to play a wizard (I was just starting to play D&D then), plus allowed for a natural evolution of your character's understanding of magic. Not a perfect system but I did enjoy it at the time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745644276309668151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-24347199411741246212017-03-12T15:33:46.224-07:002017-03-12T15:33:46.224-07:00For more "dark & dangerous" magic yo...For more "dark & dangerous" magic you might check out the magic in Low Fantasy Gaming rpg (d20 variant with a low magic base) - free PDF or print on demand: https://lowfantasygaming.com/Psikerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02744089998921613315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-31110014359813033622017-02-13T23:43:25.926-08:002017-02-13T23:43:25.926-08:00@Matthew: Which would be great if it made sense, b...@Matthew: Which would be great if it made sense, but there are a number of models that can be used for managing resources that ALSO make sense. Like actual Vancian magic, or spell points.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.com