What magic shouldn't do, or "But I want to play a rogue"

[NezMaster]

Since your working on a fantasy magic system, and I've been thinking about some of my problems with fantasy games over the years, I thinkthe big thing that might make a fantasy game work for me, is if Magic doesn't answer everything.

Majic usually outdoes everything in fantasy games. What's better, a fighter taking out one opponent at a time, or a fireball levelling armies in one hit? A massive lockpick skill, or a first level knock spell.

On a more humorous note, I'm in a high level fantasy game (arcana evolved) and we had a problem involving some engineering. After about 10 minutes of listening to the mages argue about stone shape, levitate, and which level spells they needed, I turned to the gm and said "How long would it take me to do this with a hand drill and a ladder?"
"10 minutes, tops"
The other players looked at me in awe.


The reliance on magic is what doesn't work in most fantasy games. The existence of magic I like, but I prefer systems where it's use is a bit more limited. I hate games where you can buy +5 swords of deathdealign on a streetcorner.

Unless your running a comedy, the implications of some of the magic items freely available in most worlds is breathtaking. Think of the simplicity of the most world shaking tech in our lives.

Refrigerators, Light Bulbs, and cars are the founding blocks of what pushed us intoa modern society.
Teleport spells, feast spells, and permanent light bulbs would change society so dramatically from the medievel sort usually presented as to be mind boggling.

So, my wish for fantasy craft is magic that makes a tiny amount of sense, does not detract from not having it, and actually shakes up society with what you can do with it. Do all that, and I'd consider buying it.

[Morgenstern]

This ties in nicely with something I finally cracked earlier today and previewed over in the Spellbound board- I very much wanted spells effects that produce effects similar to skill to be tied to those skill checks, providing bonuses instead of replacing them entirely. They have a safety net (a minumum result they produce which can become quite large over time) but they are definitely better in the hands of someone who understands the underlying mundane skill, not just the magic version! Working out a solid ratio/formula should make some of the more abusive charms fall neatly into line.

[Ezram]

Should it not be scaling so that it can accommodate both low and high magic playstyles?

[Morgenstern]

Spellbound is expressly a high magic toolset (truth in advertising with the high magic campaign quality ). Low magic is something I enjoy, but generally approach with a different set of knives than pure spell casting. Low magic is on my mind some days, but it's not really ready for the big reveal yet.

[Crafty_Pat]

Since your working on a fantasy magic system, and I've been thinking about some of my problems with fantasy games over the years, I thinkthe big thing that might make a fantasy game work for me, is if Magic doesn't answer everything.

Majic usually outdoes everything in fantasy games. What's better, a fighter taking out one opponent at a time, or a fireball levelling armies in one hit? A massive lockpick skill, or a first level knock spell.

[snip]

The reliance on magic is what doesn't work in most fantasy games. The existence of magic I like, but I prefer systems where it's use is a bit more limited. I hate games where you can buy +5 swords of deathdealign on a streetcorner.

Funny. This is how I feel most days about modern gear.

[NekoMouser]

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, although I'd point out that part of what made D&D "mundanes" weak when compared to magic users is that they were just friggin' weak period due to first and second edition conceits about how mages should get punked by house cats at low levels and then suddenly become WMDs at 5th level, and that by that reasoning they were balanced against characters that had an even break in the early levels and then got punked by said WMDs at later levels. It's pretty clear that this is a factor 4e will be hoping to correct from some of the design notes Wizards has gotten around to publishing.

The range of abilities available to non-magic using Spycraft characters is pretty astonishing, and kinda puts the whole "hand drill and a ladder" thinking firmly in the front. Spycraft spellslingers aren't the only ones that can wipe out small armies at a whack...take a look at the Spiral Cut trick out of WoF and contemplate a more balanced playing field for the fighter. And don't even get me started on the difference between a guy with an invisibility spell and a guy with Ghost Supremacy. A fancy illusion does not a ninja make. ^_^

But the cool part for my money? From what I've noted about the Channeler, Spycraft spellcasters aren't simply bodybag filler once they run out of juice. They have skills and abilities that make them viable characters beyond just being a walking gadget. And that's something pretty new for d20 system magic users...

[spinningdice]

Going on the Channeller I think the Spellbound Magic classes have a specific role, the Channeller isn't a a parallel to a D&D Wizard, he's a pure combatant, more of a parallel to the soldier, I expect the Enchanter to be a parallel to a faceman or Advocate and so on. Each spellcaster type has a defined role, rather than the D&D bag of tricks approach to spellcastery.

[NekoMouser]

I was referencing Channeler more as a representative of what a magic using Spycraft class looks like, and not voicing them as a direct analog of the D&D wizard. Apples to apples, you'd get more mileage out of a Channeler/Warmage comparison. But there again, you've still got a Spycraft character that doesn't have "one trick pony" and product endorsements on his robes, while the D&D character is left holding the short end of the bear poking stick and wearing just enough armor that  running from the bear is no longer feasible and climb checks just aren't happening. ^_^

Versatility is the Spycraft characters real advantage, and he doesn't lose anything to get it. Spellbound seems bent on keeping that model for casters as much as it does for everybody else, which is kind of a new trend for d20 games which by and large go out of their way to create magic users based on an entirely different standard. I think maybe that states my point a bit more clearly...

[Ezram]

Wow. My post got deleted, and it wasn't as bad as NekoMouser's...how sad.

Yay censorship!

[Crafty_Pat]

Wow. My post got deleted, and it wasn't as bad as NekoMouser's...how sad.

Yay censorship!

What post was that? I didn't even see it...

[Morgenstern]

Wow. My post got deleted, and it wasn't as bad as NekoMouser's...how sad.

Yay censorship!

Yes, it did, because it was both obnoxious and without benefit. Same as I periodicaly strip 'bump' posts.

I figured you'd take the hint and appreciate some discretion, but if you'd prefer to be publicly told knock it off, well, there you go.

[Ezram]

Right, so because I called him out for his thinly veiled insults of D&D, it deserved to be deleted? Did I forgot to throw in a "Yay Spycraft!" in there to balance out my opinion?

[Morgenstern]

*snort* Been nice speaking to you.

[Crafty_Alex]

Right, so because I called him out for his thinly veiled insults of D&D, it deserved to be deleted? Did I forgot to throw in a "Yay Spycraft!" in there to balance out my opinion?

Mod Voice Time:

Ezram, your attitude is rapidly deteriorating into be argumentative and pendantic, and insulting the community and designers of this game directly in multiple threads is beyond the pale. You're free to have your opinion, but no one is obliged to deal with this sort of behavior here.

This is your one official warning - knock it off. Now.

[Ezram]

I think not. If it's okay for him to insult another system that others here may enjoy, it should be okay for me to at least call him out on it (and the post wasn't even offensive for chrissake...).