Might and Magic (Part 2)

[continued from here]

People may notice that the list of blogs listed in the sidebar include a random sampling of non-active blogs that probably need to be deleted...and perhaps someday they will, if I ever get around to getting active on Patreon (and want to make blog listing a "reward" for some level of support). However, I still hold out hope that these might "fire up" again, at some point in the future. And sometimes, I still reference them for their old posts.

Such is the case with long dead Grognardia. As I wrote in Part 1, I was up till the wee hours combing through old (digital) copies of The Dragon, and I was using some of James's old posts to add a bit of additional perspective. Just in random passing, I came across this old post of his and (especially in view of my recent thoughts, dissatisfaction with magic-users as is/was) it reminded me of something. I hate the lumping of spell-casters into one or (at most) two types "magic paradigm."

See my post on this back in 2010. At the time, I was working on The Complete B/X Adventurer (man, THAT has been selling like hotcakes the last two months, just by the way) and in an effort to add more content to a skinny book, decided to throw in some different types of spell-casting classes. I ended up with five total (gnomes, mystics, summoners, tattoo mages, and witches), each with their own variant form of magic...not just "magic-users with different spell lists," but completely different approaches to the form and function of magic. The bee in my bonnet (at the time) was this idea that isn't it Goddamn boring to have everything simply be arcane or divine?

Let me answer that: Yes. Yes it is.

This is the reason you don't find illusionists in D&D after 1st edition (at least, not as a core class). First, ya' fold all their spells under a heading called "arcane," then you say:

"Hey, if you want to specialize in illusion magic, pick illusion spells."

Much as I want a certain cosmology in my game world, I don't want a unified field theory of magic.

[hmm...I say this after already creating a brand-new variant magic system for the current project consisting of a single list of spells: the Forty Magnificent Marvels. Sigh...back to the drawing board...again]

I like the idea of different magical schools, each dedicated to a different brand of enchantment. Fire mages, necromancers, druids, etc. It's not a terribly original concept, I realize: I believe I first saw this kind of paradigm circa 1983 with DragonQuest (I created a stone giant who was a member of the Earth Magic college...sadly, we never had the chance to do more than chargen that day...). Ars Magica does a little of this, too, and I've used the concept a couple times in past FHBs I was developing ("LORE," which I briefly mentioned before, had some of this). The original WHFRP had demonologists, necromancers, battle mages, etc. each with their own separate spell list, skills, and (in some cases) horrifying drawbacks.

I dig this...it has a very old school (please, PLEASE forgive the use of that term!) pulp fantasy vibe. Like the rival wizard guilds in a Leiber story trying to show off why their magic is supreme (shades of 70's Hong Kong flicks with feuding martial art schools). Heck, it's the kind of thing that could work well with the concept of "wizard duels." Forget counter-spells: an illusionist doesn't know the first thing about countering a fire mage's spell. But create a mechanic to simulate dueling, and you can still have two mages of different backgrounds duking it out.

Now that I think of it, this is a big part of why I dug Magic Cards, waaaay back: the idea that you were a Red Mage or a Blue Mage or whatever, and the deck represented your spell book. I always liked working with a "theme;" but then, I've long been one of those people that prefer the fluff of a game over practical application (often to my detriment). Hmm...now that reminds me of the Rankin-Bass film Flight of Dragons with its different colored "wizard brothers."

Of course, that just reminds me of Tolkien (again) with its grey, white, brown, and blue wizards...and weren't Frank Baum's witches color-coded as well? Differing magic by color has a long and distinguished tradition, I suppose...

*ahem*

And to tie this back to the last post... One thing I was considering (just an idea, mind you), is providing more static spell lists for magicians. Limiting them (I suppose you'd say) rather than throwing this huge list of spells at players, only to have them (mostly) choose the same spells over and over. There would be some variation, of course (just as fighters get to choose what weapons they want to carry), and perhaps different lists depending on theme (a druid style list versus the illusionist, for example). Magicians would still acquire effectiveness with experience, though perhaps not so much a greater repertoire of spells. And the spells that would be gained (with increase in level) would be equally limited...something akin to Barker's EPT (1st edition) skill trees, building on knowledge already known.

No necromancers, though...otherwise everyone wants to be one.

The trade-off here...or, rather, what would be gained...would be an increased effectiveness from the get-go. Your magician (or pyromancer or whatever), would have a number of spells at his or her disposal right from 1st level...perhaps the equivalent (in D&D terms) of seven or eight spells ranging in magnitude of 1st through 3rd level. Something fairly equivalent to Gandalf, in other words. None of these would be over-powering, "game changing" sort (unless applied in creative fashion)...most would be of the "utility" type (said utility being determined by the school or "theme" of magic).

Anyway, just an idea I have...I'll see if I can work up some sample lists in the next couple days and post 'em to the blog. I have a strong suspicion that long-time players of the MU class in D&D might hate-hate-hate this concept for a number of reasons: it undermines the work they've put into mastering spell lists, it reduces the choices/options they have, it penalizes the creative strategies they've developed over years of play, it doesn't have the same feel as Vancian D&D, etc. And if folks DO raise these objections, I say: FINE. Go play D&D.

Take your 1st level sleep bomber or charm personer with your bandolier of throwing knives and go play D&D. Pick your edition...it's all the same (except that recent ones let you shoot lasers...um, "cantrips"...just like Harry Potter). Go skulk behind the fighters and clerics for umpteen game sessions until you've acquired enough points that you can be effective. Go do it...I'm not going to stop you! And when you've reached the lofty level where you outclass the non-spell-casters and there's the potential threat of grumbling, you can always incorporate feats and maneuvers and weapon specialization and be a merry band spending an entire game session on a single battle that will be a challenge for your immensely talented party.

That's one way to play (and a time honored one, to be sure). I'm just trying to work on a different way: one that appeals to me. I'm a guy who doesn't play magic-users...like never ever ever. And not because I don't like magic or something. I love stories of wizards and sorcerers and magicians and witches (well, most such stories...sorry, Ms. Rowling). Gandalf is a personal favorite...in fact, I lied! I did...once...play a wizard in 3rd Edition, and I modeled the character on Gandalf, right down to taking Martial Weapon Proficiency: Sword.

[I believe I related this story in the past? We couldn't get past the first obstacle in the adventure because I, as the party wizard, had not taken the "correct" spells. 'What do you mean you don't have fly? You're seventh level!' The DM, folded the adventure in disgust and our session ended. It was the last time I've ever played a straight wizard PC]

I don't like magic-users in D&D. I don't like the way they're conceptualized, I don't like their mechanics, I don't particularly like their steep power curve (and I'm a person that likes power!). So, I want to make a magician class that I'd like to play. That's all this is, folks.
: )

Counter-Spells (for real this time)

OKay, moving on...counter-spells are something I've been wanting to write on since Eric Treasure commented that it would be good (for magic-users) if one could combine the "no saving throw" thang with a workable counter-spell mechanic. "Workable" is the operative word. Remember me writing about cutting down on dice rolls during combat, especially reactive/defensive rolls (like parrying/dodging?). Well, that's the main principle here preventing me from using some sort of dice-roll counter-spell "save" type thing.

Chainmail had counter-spells: an opposing wizard can spend his entire action during the round to counter the spell of another wizard. A 2D6 roll is made with the target number determined by the difference in power levels between the two (targets range from 7 up to 11). Here we have something workable...the counter-spelling mage still only receives one die roll for his "go" in combat (as opposed to a dice roll to cast a spell). But then, D&D doesn't have casting rolls.

[as an aside, Five Ancient Kingdoms, largely inspired by Chainmail, uses a similar mechanic for counter-spells]

As far as I'm aware, the first published attempt at counter-spells in D&D is found in 3rd edition (though admittedly it's been a loooong time since I've owned a 2nd edition book or played that version...and I didn't play it more than a couple times). And it's pretty cumbersome: the wizard has to actually know and have memorized the spell which she wants to counter. Then, if the would-be counter-speller makes a successful skill roll (*barf*) to identify the enemy wizard's spell, she can counter it by burning her memorized version of the same spell.

The way counter-spelling works in 3E, it just doesn't look very useful. I actually played quite a bit of 3E and never once saw an attempted counter-spell. I mean, if you have flesh to stone and the enemy has flesh to stone, why not just try to stone them before they stone you? Because you lost initiative and your spellcraft skill roll is easier than your fortitude save? I guess...but this is just fiddly rules for the sake of fiddlyness builtin the already shaky foundation of an inconsistent approach to magic (in earlier editions magic-users always had good saving throws versus magic because it was a save versus magic; beginning with 3E, different spells started targeting different...well, you know I wrote a whole series on this, so I'm not going to go through that again).

I've no idea what 4E's approach to counter-spells is because, you know: garbage. But 5E actually has a very simple solution: a 3rd level spell called "counterspell." You cast counterspell as a "reaction action" to another wizard trying to cast a spell: if the spell is 3rd level or lower it's countered, if it's 4th or higher it might be countered depending on a die roll (though a mage can memorize counter spell at a higher spell slot in order to give it more auto-dispelling "punch"). This is very similar to the use of dispel magic as a counter-spell in 3rd edition, except for the auto-effect. It's kind of a Magic: The Gathering approach to counter-spelling ...throw down your two mana "instant" to knock out the opponent's spell.

I have this card in a shoebox somewhere.

[Note that dispel magic still exists in 5E (as a separate spell) but it is used to dispel existing magic, not magic being cast]

Here's the thing about counter-spells: how you implement them is going to say a lot about what magic is in your world and how it (magic) operates. It's going to (in part) define something of the cosmology of your world.

If you've got Vancian magic (D&D) and you need to cast the actual spell to achieve a counter (as in 3rd edition), you are reinforcing the idea of spells as living things, with only their identical siblings being able to successfully combat each other. If you say you just need to learn and memorize a candle-snuffer like 5E's counter-spell, you're saying that magic is a harnessing of forces easily disrupted and dispersed with the right application of "zing."

When you define magic in this way...i.e. when you start nailing down the cosmology...it behooves you as a designer to consider the implications. If magic is so easy to disrupt that it only needs a 3rd level counterspell, then many professional adventurers are going to want to study at least a few levels of wizard just to pick up that ability (or to be able to read a scroll with it or whatever).

My own game...*ahem*...that is to say, the game on which I'm currently working doesn't have "counter-spells." It also doesn't have spell design, either. It's a fairly finite world in that regard: the magic is what the magic is, and spells are limited to the Forty Magnificent Marvels. Mastery of said spell list is possible, with dedication and sacrifice, but it's a noteworthy feat. These spells cannot be countered...nor are there saving throws...but we're talking about reshaping the universe and breaking natural laws here, not things that can be brushed aside by humans. Even magically trained humans...if you unleash the beast, it's gonna' roam. Spell-breaking (of the remove curse stamp) is possible, but requires a broader base of knowledge than most other magics.

'Course, that's all subject to change: the game's not even to the play-testing stage.
; )

Because I do like the idea of counter-spells. Or rather (and more accurately) I like the idea of opposing magicians struggling against one another. The idea of the "wizard duel" which was so poorly implemented (IMO) in the Ars Magica game. The concept that when two wizards meet in battle, they can effectively neutralize each other...leaving the resolution of an encounter to the sword-wielders or (if one wizard can get the upper hand) decisively turning the tables for one side.

But that's something I've yet to work out. Heck, I hadn't even put much thought into it till writing this (too busy worrying about hats, I guess). It is something I'm considering now, though, and for the new heartbreaker, it will probably take the place of any "counter-spelling" mechanic.

Just as an aside: I was talking to my (three year old) son a couple days ago and I asked him, "If you were an adventurer living in olden times, would you rather be a caballero or a mago?" His response? Caballero ("knight"). Why? Because they have armor and swords and get to fight. What does a mago ("magician") do? They do magic and make potions. Can't they fight? Not like knights.

He really is a boy after my own heart.