D&D's limitations on magic annoy me
I've watched and played and read all kinds of fantasy movies, games and books, and I know many glorious examples of the genre, as well as a lot of mythology and fairy tales. And D&D's treatment of magic exasperates me. It's not just the memorization system. It's that magic comes in strictly defined spells, and that people get a definite number of spells per day, and that those spells have definite limitations and applications and conditions, and hardly any are permanent... I know there had to be limits for use in a game system, and I know it's an antiquated system, whether still Advanced or already not. But it's still so fucking measly.
0
Comments
Take Edwin and give him some rings and all the wands.
Problem solved.
From what I understand it is absolutely possible in D&D to create your own spells, provided you are powerful enough. That's why several spells are named after the powerful wizards who first came up with them (e.g. Larloch's Minor Drain). I believe spells are also more complex than the game reflects, with components, ingredients, etc. involved that are just omitted for simplicity.
That being said, Vancian Magic does have its quirks. It was always designed with a GAME in mind, rather than a coherent logic suitable to a purely diegetic setting without player involvement. Not that magic in many books isn't full of flaws either, though. Many a novel whose plot falls apart when you just ask "uh so why DIDN'T they solve this with magic?"
When I see something like Skyrim (Or, The Elder Scrolls in general, I suppose) where magic is so easily accessible, endless, and has hardly any limitations, I can't imagine anyone in that world not using it on a daily basis, and that sort of breaks some of the realism of the game's universe for me.
I'm not exactly the most well-versed in the D&D universe outside of BG/IWD/etc., but I admire how they make magic seem like an actually dangerous and difficult force to wield. Joe Blow who lives down the street can't just conjure up a pillar of flames when he's chilly, and that adds a certain sense of reality to a world where things like xvarts exist.
It also kind of defeats a lot of possible plotholes which, as many of us are probably aware, are fairly common in the fantasy genre. If Joe Blow down the road can go buy a teleportation scroll from the local market, then why is a raiding group of orcs a problem for the village? Everyone can just snap their fingers and disappear, and relocate somewhere safer.
Despite the literal definition of fantasy, I like my alternate universes to maintain some kind of realism, and strong limitations on the use of magic help maintain that reality. It makes the universe more believable, in my opinion.
On the other hand, I like the idea that magic in D&D is a kind of forgotten knowledge and people use but a fraction of the "real thing". I myself prefer when magic is misterious and hardly accessible.
But later we have mounting minutiae, things like detailed descriptions of the power of wishes, what exactly they could or could not do. Wishes as a spell has always shocked me. I get cognitive dissonance when I have to put together "you can do anything" and "this is a rote available anytime." For me a wish is something out of Aladdin: to die for. Things got to the point where all new monsters with special abilities had lists of provisos on what could affect or counter them, and you had to study those: cure disease does not work, remove curse or limited wish do but only if cast within 1 week. And so on. Why the hell did TSR have to explain everything?
P.S. In Conan stories magic is not rare, it's just limited to very special people and races and creatures. It's all black devilry, and Conan himself represents anti-magic, so to speak. But it's powerful as hell. Yara the sorcerer could turn someone into a spider just like that, and his tower was chock full of miracles.
And then there is the saving throw mechanic. That's a gripe all in itself. To cast a spell that just MIGHT work - or it MIGHT not - well...
Imagine being the mage in a band of adventurers. Your party worked hard and earned 100 gold by spending a whole week fighting murderous monsters, risking life and limb just to get a hold of that money. So you spend that money buying components for a big spell, a really important spell that you can use to take down the evil lich or basilisk or whatever.
Except you got hit by a fireball. The spell components all got torched. All of the party's efforts vanished in an instant.
Or maybe you tried casting the spell, but you failed the spell because you were using a shield to avoid getting killed by an arrow. 5% spell disruption for using a teeny buckler.
Or maybe you were casting the spell just fine, but then an orc slapped you in the face and disrupted the spell. He didn't even bother using his axe; he just smacked you.
Or maybe you cast the spell and it hit the target and everything... but the lich or basilisk or whatever made its saving throw. No sell.
If you're a mage, your friends might die horribly painful deaths just to pay for the spell that you ended totally botching in 6 seconds.
Finally, some spells have physical side-effects of which you must be aware. Consider everyone's favorite--fireball. In an open area, the fireball expands until it is a hemispherical shape with a radius of 10m, which comes to 2094.4 m^3. In an indoor setting, the fireball expands until it fills that much volume--if you cast it on enemies which are too close you risk engulfing your own party members in the expanding flames. On a hexagonal map where each hexagon is 1m across, the volume of each hexagon (presuming a height of 3m or "average ceiling height") is 1.95 m^3, so the fireball will expand until it covers 1,074 hexagons, moving out from the point of detonation. In other words, if you are going to use fireball inside a dungeon or castle setting you had better be sure of where everyone is standing.
It is possible to create an item in the Infinity Engine which will apply the "wondrous recall" effect to your mage every so often; this will refresh spells (higher-level spells first) and obviates the need for resting to memorize. If you want to change spells, be certain to do so before the effect hits and recharges what you already have listed on your memory list.
Just like in dnd in the tes universe you can learn basic magic from books, but without a teacher or guide you're more likely to do greater harm than good if you try to push further into more advanced magic without proper teaching. Are there exceptions to this, yes but same exceptions exist in dnd. I mean heck, end has a whole class that technically breaks that restriction rule.
I can't think of a single serious series that didn't make magic overly dangerous without proper teaching or some kind of prodigy level of understanding of it first.
3e also got rid of tracking individual spell components. Now you just need a component pouch to be able to cast any spell with a material requirement, and it's assumed you have enough components to cast all the spells you need. Some spells require expensive components that must be tracked separately (Identify, for example), limiting such spells' usage.
And AD&D materials have often tried to impress the same utilitarian point of view - that no one knows how magic works, you just say this mumbo-jumbo and stick out your thumbs and puff, a house appears. That approach was hardly believable with so many supernatural empires and devas and fiends on Toril alone, and of course it would be impossible to create anything new with that kind of ignorance!
The other source of this total pragmatism is the gameplay of D&D. Dungeons and modules are mostly linear obstacle courses, and characters just bring tools to bear on them - swords, pickaxes, lanterns, potions, wands... The wizard is simply the most versatile problem-solver: he can dig through a wall, fly over a lava pit, teleport the party where it's needed, lock a door against barging monsters... Really, in a different setting this could all just as well be described as effects of cyber-implants or devices, and, of course, that's what later systems did. Discrete effects. Technical fixes. Tools. But Heinlein was wrong when he said that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - or rather, it's true that they may be impossible to tell apart, especially for ignorant observers, but that doesn't mean they are actually the same.
Is it an American tendency to mistake everything for a technology, I wonder? Anyway, there have been several (I won't say many) RPG systems where the magic system was highly flexible. In White Wolf's Mage: The Ascension you would spend experience to master Spheres like Mind or Forces in degrees ranging from *, which was just perception, all the way to ***** for arch-mages. And when you wanted to do something you would suggested it to the Storyteller: "Can I throw a fire bolt at the guy with my Forces ** ?" You both more or less had an idea what the level of command of a Sphere represented, and then he would think about other factors in play in the scene and say yes or no. I'm sure Dungeon Masters in D&D often did that sort of thing as well, but basic gameplay was about definite solutions for definite problems, and most players clamored for clear rules and guarantees against the DM's whim; and then for the designers balance became all-important - a vicious circle to retain customers and drain away any mystery that might upset an increasingly spoiled and feckless audience.
The saving throw mechanic for spells to me is a problem when it determines whether something works at all or not; this I don't accept; I don't know how someone could just grind his teeth and push through whatever force can turn one's body into slime or stone or pulverize it. And if a save means that it was a ray and it missed, well, why can't I direct the ray better? Why do I have to leave it to chance? When a save is for half damage, that sort of thing I'm more comfortable with, but only if the targets actually make an effort to dodge. Randomness inherent to rolling six-sided dice for a fireball already covers dumb luck, I think: one target will suffer 5 points, another 15. But why should some targets get to ignore half of the damage, when they're all just charging forward?
As for how else this could be managed, I can point to Amber, a game that used no dice at all for anything. In Amber, if I'm stronger than you, I can beat you - that's what it means to be stronger. If you can find a clever trick, tip the scale somehow, then you'll be stronger in this situation, and then you win. Simple. Likewise with magic: if I'm an archmage, why should I have to rely on dice rolls in a duel with a sorcerer's apprentice wearing a pointy hat? But in D&D insistence on a misunderstood realism would let the puniest goblin resist the magic of Asmodeus, Lord of the Nine Hells, 1 time in 20. In a small crowd of goblins, just 20, one would probably be left standing. Take that, Asmodeus!
There is another rare book called Fantasy Wargamming (Bruce Galloway I think) that had an interesting take on a game system. It looks at fantasy and magic from a purely historical perspective. What people believed in during the different time periods, Fey as an gateway into a mystical land. Elves and dwarves became smaller and weaker as time progresses up to the 1500's. The magic system was set up so you could attempt practically anything but starting out the chance of success was lower. But there were no limitations other than types, hedge wizards at the lower end and Jewish Cabalists at the higher end. Armor and weapons were based on time periods, so no full plate in all settings.
I enjoyed it alot but players had trouble figuring out spell ideas after having been used to the rigid D&D spell selections (which I still like anyway). Anyway, was enjoyable and nice to have a setting based on fairytales, history, and beliefs from the times.
Sure, there are people in the Elder Scrolls universe who are much more adept at using magic, but that doesn't negate the fact that literally anybody can use it. Outside of video games, if I were to be plopped down into the province of Skyrim (assuming I can muster up enough courage to move five feet away from where I started), the idea of an ice waith or frost atronach really don't seem all that intimidating. All I need is a cheap book that'll teach me to shoot flames, sit down and read for an hour or two, and all those violent creatures made of ice become nothing more than a puddle at my feet.
If magic were more restrictive, or much harder to come across, then those creatures would feel as dangerous and intimidating as they're supposed to. Wizards in TES would have so much more worth, and would be an invaluable ally to some drunken nord viking looking to traverse the tundras of his homelane.
As you said, magic can become a lot more dangerous without the proper knowledge. Just look at the Dwemer, after all, or that fellow in Morrowind who falls to his death right in front of you soon after you start the game. But in my opinion, the ability to burn down an entire forest, or shock someone to death with lightning, are not things that someone should be able to do all day long, so long as they rest for thirty seconds to regain their magical powers.
And the fact that someone is capable of doing this, while also donning massive armour made of unholy metals, with a matching longsword in the other hand, just doesn't feel right to me.
It just doesn't seem realistic, I suppose. Again, I understand we're talking about fantasy here, but still. I like to think that if I were to be thrown into a fantasy universe, I'd have a lot more than "because the developers said so" holding me back from becoming a walking, indestructible god among men.
I should also note that, despite the likely tone of this post, I really enjoy TES games. These are just my thoughts on the subject.
But then, I tend to like a more toned down and less of a 'Monty Haul' approach, where lerning something or finding magic things is more of a surprise, rather than just like pickin taters out of a row in a field.
Alot of computers games seem to have changed into that.
However, magic items have been toned down and are not as common (or as essential) as they where in 3rd edition.
You do realise that there is a separation between game play and a how things actually act in lore right? For example in tes lore the vampires of skyrim are capable of a lot more things than what they do in the came. They can do things like walk through the walls of ice and pull you into it, but you don't see stuff is like this in game play because of a variety of reasons.
This means something as dangerous as a frost astronoch or ice wraith story wise would take a lot more than just a level one fire spell to beat but you don't see this in game play for a variety of reason, one being the family doesn't always reflect the lore of the world.
I mean if you want to get real technical, with the exception of man made astronoch, astronoch are a species of daedra and up until the oblivion crisis and after it, you wouldn't just run into these things in the wilderness like you can in the game. Meaning people who only had bare minimal comprehension of magic wouldn't ever have to deal with them unless they were stupid enough to try to use magic far beyond their understanding which would lead to the daedra you know, killing them. Which you know, actually a mages guild quest. A group of young mages tried to summon a daedra, FAR MORE POWERFUL Then all five of them together could control and it killed them. Heck it even happens here in dnd, how many lives do we kill again? And how many phylacteries do we destroy, none! Despite that being the only way to kill a liche! The gameplay isn't reflecting the lore.
And there is nothing wrong with anyone who can afford to learn magic, learning it. Wait or is the problem that magic is KNOWLEDGE and not meta and then you're going to have to explain to my why does magic need to be meta? I freaking hate when magic is meta. I made a statement glossing over it here. I got annoyed with how most mages in baldur's gate was always the ruling and almost never dealt with someone who wasn't rich but devoted their life to studying magic. Do you know what someone replied me me? Because magic is knowledge, and in the time period these games exist it is mostly the aristocracy that could afford certain levels of knowledge and it's similar in the tes series. Most people can't even afford the cost it takes to actually get a teacher or to move to the major city where a mages guild exist for them to learn. The only reason for magic to be anything beyond knowledge is just to make the player feel like a special little snowflake which to me makes no sense since just bring the pc with the world revolving around them already makes them a special snowflake.
Your also ignoring the fact humans has this thing called mana reserves it's the exact same limitation idea as the whole spell count system in dnd except in gameplay it is restored alot easier than it actually would be if you were actually reading the story as if it was a book. The only was someone could cast a spell all day i ln tes is of they had the eye of magnus which would effectively make them a spell slinging god or casting a lowly level spell with a high mana pool which would effectively be useless against high level creatures.
Again you're using game play as if lore is ran by the gameplay. By that logic no spell in baldur's gate or skyrim can ever fail to be casted because the game play of both game's don't allow spell casting to fail. This doesn't mean the target can't resist the effects, but the effective casting of the spell it self is always 100% successful which be all know is bs in both series lores and is part of the reason people hate the wild mage (and i love them) and why in skyrim there is a mod that lets you cast spells that are above your skill level but has a high chance of failing resulting in a negative affect happening.
But thank you, you just ignited the fire in me to play either skyrim or resources now... And i don't have a working mouse
Spellcaster represent!
This can become very interesting if you license the code, or worse yet patent it. Imagine game mechanic where you must pay royalty every time you cast a particular spell or are barred from creating one because another wizard has already patented the formula.
Then there could be copyright enforcers, demanding you to present license... Mechanically it's not so different from Cowled Wizards' license to cast magic in Athkatla, but may be an interesting touch if designed right.
That was back in the days when readers would actually know what "Kubla Khan" is.
Much of the narrowing of options and ideas that we notice here, the streamlining, simply comes down to widespread illiteracy.
To Ardanis - magic as something that requires permission has been done often, but as actual copyright? Why, that's good stuff for fiction. A book, not a game. I can already see some titles: Sued for Fireballs. Or: Small Print Cantrips. Or: The Torrent Tiara. And I'll tell you more: who the perfect central character for a series of such short stories would be. A copyright lawyer! A sort of updated Perry Mason. A stalwart of the law, but sensitive. Or maybe litigant by day, vigilante by night.
Hey, anyone played King of Dragon Pass? One of the greatest games ever made. Used the Hero Quest system, which is entirely metaphorical. Campbell, Jung, that sort of thing. Still, for me somehow the "system" of Hyborea, Conan's world, is just right. Sorcery can be learned by exceptional humans, but it changes them and it requires more than book-reading. It can change the fate of a nation, rarely, as when the People of the Black Circle stole the sister of the King of Wendia, but it stays local and has no pretensions to taking over the world. This really is one of the greatest reliefs of more original and inspired systems than what we have in D&D, that as a writer or game master you are spared having to answer pedestrian questions like "Why can't I take over the world with my lightning bolts?" In a good setting the answer is not that your lightning bolts aren't big enough or that someone else out there has bigger - this just never comes up. Oh, this modern-day extrapolation of everything to a universal level, negligence of context, this greedy desire to turn a fast buck, quickly climb some imaginary ladder - when there isn't one to begin with...
In the movie's climax, Willow throws an magic acorn, which turns anything it hits to stone, at the evil queen Bavmorda. She catches the acorn and her hand begins to turn to stone, but she is so powerful that she stops the transformation, reverses it, and pulverizes the magic acorn into dust (i.e., she made her saving throw vs. petrification).
At a PnP table-game, the DM can flesh out the result of a simple die roll into an evocative narrative like the above battle between Willow and Bavmorda. In a computer game like BGEE, the player will need to use their imagination. Did the vines from Jaheira's Entangle spell just not do anything against the ogre berserker, or do you imagine that it hacked through them with powerful strokes from its morning star?
But that's okay. We do this all the time in the real world, too. Fuel efficiency is measured in miles per gallon or kilometers per liter; not in Heisenberg distances per molecule of gasoline. Likewise in medicine, pricing, etc.
That's the problem with the saving throw mechanic, especially one that negates an effect entirely: it is not based on a character's power, because even with very good saving throw numbers high HD creatures like liches and dragons still fail about 3-4 times out of 20, and always 1 time out of 20, but it's also not related to any special actions or maneuvers on the part of the creature. I don't consider trying to resist something harmful coming over you an action, everyone would. In fact by AD&D rules a creature or character must voluntarily decline (its player must announce) its saving throw or lower magic resistance, when it wants to receive an effect, which means that the saving throw, automatic as it is, already represents standard willpower effort. But then, why is it random? Why is it a roll? As for raising a shield, dodging etc., as you say, those cannot be assumed to just have happened. Let a creature, a character actually do those things, let them, for starters, have the time for that in the order of initiative. I'm not opposed to small randomness in determining who goes first in a round, though, in my opinion, this should be by and large a matter of absolute speed.
At some point, it's like water flow. You can't track every particle so you use fluid dynamics equations to describe it.