Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

[Belial]

..29.. all the time?

Hrm. If you went Max HP, that'd be 24, with a 14-15 Con and the Toughness feat, you'd have 29 HP. If you didn't do max HP and don't have the toughness feat, I.. have no idea how you have 29 HP, other than 12 (level 1) and 11(level 2) for 23 hit points and an 18 Con (+6).

Umm...18 con would be +8.

[SecondTalon]

Wait, shit. Yeah, math r hard.

[SirBryghtside]

I think I had around 16 Con, which equated to 12 HP at level 1, and then I rolled a D12 which scored me 11 at level 2. +6 to that for some reason, and I have 29 max.

I might have gotten all of that wrong, though.

[SecondTalon]

Yeah, a Barbarian's hit die is the 12, and you should get your full die at level 1. Roll an 11, and with a 16 con you'd have 29 (Because 16 con gives you a +3 to your hit points per level, so at level 2 that's +6.)

[voicedotter]

My group has decided to ditch our 4.0 campaign and start a pathfinders campaign.

[Aiea]

I'm trying to help a friend get an Exalted game going... it's like pulling teeth getting a time when everyone can play. But I can't wait until we do! It's been too long since I last played.

[gmalivuk]

What the hell, 4e? Circles are now squares? I could see using such disturbingly non-Euclidean geometry in a Call of Cthulhu campaign, but the mathematician in me is bothered by the suggestion that 1²+1²=1².

(Yes, I'm being facetious. I'm sure there's already a Religious Wars debate on 3.5 vs. 4e, so I'll take any of my real opinions about changes over there if I feel like it.)

It's nice to have a good DM who runs regularly and plans shit out beforehand...

[bigglesworth]

Even Civilization has gone to hexagons, squares are so old-fashioned.

[Jessica]

Wait, wasn't that how it worked in 3 and 3.5?
I remember the battle grid existing in D&D 3. I thought it was in 3.5 as well.

[SecondTalon]

It does, but diagonals in 3.5 were abstract and counted in an alternating 5-10-5-10 way so as to simulate the actual (roughly) 7.5 feet it would actually represent.

In 4th ed, a diagonal and a straight are the exact same distance - a movement square is a movement square is a movement square.

Compare 4th Edition Templates to 3rd edition

[gmalivuk]

Yeah, 3e and 3.5e at least attempt to approximate the normal Euclidean norm (by approximating sqrt(2) as 1.5). Then when they made 4e they just decided, balls to it, we're going with Chebyshev instead.

(Though I suppose the presence of multiple geodesics could have interesting effects on gameplay, at least for those of us who overthink such things...)

[Chen]

Even when playing 3.5, we always just made everything squares. It doesn't really change much balance wise and makes things less complicated, considering fights already last a long time.

[gmalivuk]

Ah, so you're one of the Chebyshevists who probably led them to make the change in the first place.

[Enokh]

Counting each square as 5ft of movement, regardless of diagonals, makes playing mobile characters -- like the monk -- absolutely hilarious to play. 4E accounts for this, but I had a 3.5 game that did the same thing. . .my level 11 hasted monk was super funny in that game.

Just got to level 4 in my current Pathfinder game. Playing a Magus. Until recently, we were prisoners in an Arena, so my character stocked up on combat spells. There's usually only one fight a day, and if there are multiple then they're back to back. So at the beginning of the first, I drop every buff spell I have. Last fight was: Magic Weapon, Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, Shield, and Expeditious Retreat (plus a Magus class ability that gave me +1 attack +1 damage, base strength 16). Ended up getting a crit while channeling Shocking Grasp through my scimitar; 2d8+16+8d6.

I then had to explain to my DM that, no, I'm not going to be able to do that all the time, and that this is kinda what happens when a gish class knows there's only one fight and is given as much time as he needs to buff.

Side note: Blech, I still REALLY want to like 4E.

[Aiea]

I'm still torn on if I like the use of minis in combat or not. I like it because the imagry can be cool. But at the same time I don't as I still heartily believe that things should move at the speed of plot. And if it's cool and aproximetly right that player x can jump off the building and charge the bad guy, sure why not, who cares how many squares it is?

[gmalivuk]

I then had to explain to my DM that, no, I'm not going to be able to do that all the time, and that this is kinda what happens when a gish class knows there's only one fight and is given as much time as he needs to buff.

Yeah, we had similar explanations in a recent 3.5 run when the DM was unhappy at how overpowered the party was. But if everyone decides to blow all their dailies on one encounter, we're going to put out rather a lot of damage.

[SecondTalon]

I'm still torn on if I like the use of minis in combat or not. I like it because the imagery can be cool. But at the same time I don't as I still heartily believe that things should move at the speed of plot. And if it's cool and approximately right that player x can jump off the building and charge the bad guy, sure why not, who cares how many squares it is?

Sure, but it's also cool how two or three perfectly placed heroes can hold off an entire army because their positioning in the chokehold is perfect.

The d20 combat system is a Minis game. Not using the minis removes several of the combat options and just completely removes the Attacks of Opportunity (on which some character builds are based).

If you don't want to use minis... there's quite a few RPGs that are thematically similar to D&D but don't need minis.

Though, honestly.. if you want a game where you can leap from a building and charge the bad guy, may I suggest Feng Shui?

Combat in Feng Shui also stands out in the way in which it is handled. There are no volumes of charts and tables to wade through, nor is it so abstracted as to be meaningless and uninteresting. Rather, players are encouraged to be as creative as possible when describing what they do in combat. Simply trying to shoot or hit someone is not enough; it has to be done with style, panache, and creativity.

Feng Shui heroes leap, dive, and slide across the scenery with a gun in each hand. They jump, spin, flip, and even fly across a room. They use their surroundings to its maximum effect, and they always look cool doing it. Watch any Jackie Chan, Jet Li, or Chow Yun-Fat film, and you'll see how it's done.

Feng Shui makes it easy for characters to pull off these kinds of stunts by assigning little or no penalty to these actions. Not only is it perfectly feasible for you to jump over the speeding Ferrari heading toward you, grab the loading crane overhead, and slide across the warehouse ceiling with one hand on the hook and the other blazing away with a H&K MP5, you'll be rewarded for doing it. Experience in the game is given out for playing with inventiveness and style, and that means making all your stunts as cinematically exciting as possible.

So forget your notions of what is and isn't “realistic”. In Feng Shui, if you've seen it at the movies, then you can probably do it in the game.

[Aiea]

I'm still torn on if I like the use of minis in combat or not. I like it because the imagery can be cool. But at the same time I don't as I still heartily believe that things should move at the speed of plot. And if it's cool and approximately right that player x can jump off the building and charge the bad guy, sure why not, who cares how many squares it is?

Sure, but it's also cool how two or three perfectly placed heroes can hold off an entire army because their positioning in the chokehold is perfect.

The d20 combat system is a Minis game. Not using the minis removes several of the combat options and just completely removes the Attacks of Opportunity (on which some character builds are based).

If you don't want to use minis... there's quite a few RPGs that are thematically similar to D&D but don't need minis.

Though, honestly.. if you want a game where you can leap from a building and charge the bad guy, may I suggest Feng Shui?

I've played various rpg games and editions and pretty much everything under the sun (though, no I haven't tried Feng Shui before). I was just commenting on my indecicevness on if using minatures in combat is a boon or a flaw. Though, I must say, even if you don't use minatrues, 3 perfectly placed heroes could still hold off an entire army based on their positioning. I wasn't saying anyone or any system was bad or wrong to use it. I like D&D, sure I haven't had a chance to play 4.0 yet, but I loved 3.0/3.5. Sometimes we used minis, sometimes we didn't. But I still will hold to the fact I like it when things can move at the speed of plot. I just figured it'd make for an interesting counterpoint to the discussion of how to count squares/hexes and which was a better counting method.

Edit, though yes, attacks of oppertunity based things would have a sore disadvantage in a mini-less combat system.

[EmptySet]

The d20 combat system is a Minis game. Not using the minis removes several of the combat options and just completely removes the Attacks of Opportunity (on which some character builds are based).

Eh? How does not using miniatures completely remove AoOs? I've played without any kind of miniatures or combat grid at all, and they still occurred regularly.

[Gelsamel]

Is there any RPG in which all magic, combat oriented or not, is hermetic magic with an explicit and well defined, realist, magic theory?

If not I guess it's not too hard to just make your own 4e setting that is like that.

[SecondTalon]

The d20 combat system is a Minis game. Not using the minis removes several of the combat options and just completely removes the Attacks of Opportunity (on which some character builds are based).

Eh? How does not using miniatures completely remove AoOs? I've played without any kind of miniatures or combat grid at all, and they still occurred regularly.

When you have a combat system based around the idea of controlling territory, of threatening space and mobility requiring that you carefully move between opponents to get to the optimal position, if you aren't using a grid you will fuck it up. With a grid you'll possibly fuck it up too.

Your 10' tall, 10'-20' wide, 80' deep corridors? When you're fighting one or two opponents? A mat isn't as necessary. On an open field, or with a half dozen foes? You will lose track of who's near who in relation to where while using the d20 system (specifically the D&D 3.X, d20 Modern and Pathfinder) and AoOs will not happen when they should, or happen when they should not.

[pseudoidiot]

I haven't played D&D in about 6 years, but I really can't imagine playing it without minis or some other representation of what's going on. Too many rules and abilities rely on a relatively detailed combat-space. A single 5 foot square can make a lot of difference to how something will work (if at all).

Sure, you can try and describe the setup as completely as possible without otherwise representing it physically, but I guarantee if I describe how things are laid out for a given combat to a table of 5 other people, then there's going to be 6 different versions of what the space actually looks like -- okay, maybe not a version for each person, but there will definitely be discrepancies around the table.

"Wait, I thought I was 15 feet away."
"No, I said you were by so&so."
"Yeah, but I thought he was by such&such."
"No, that's someone else"
etc...

Even a quick hand-drawn map would mitigate arguments like that.

[Vaniver]

Eh? How does not using miniatures completely remove AoOs? I've played without any kind of miniatures or combat grid at all, and they still occurred regularly.

Suppose you have a sheet of paper, with the names of the combatants written on it.

Code: Select all

Alice     Bob       Charlie   Dennis

Xenu      Yawgmoth  Zorkmid

You then have lines (either drawn on the paper, or real rods like pencils, so long as they don't roll too much) that represent control of the combat space. Bob, because he's a fighter, is able to get close to Yawgmoth and lock him down- Yawgmoth can only target Bob freely, and if he tries to attack anyone else Bob gets an attack.

Code: Select all

Alice     Bob       Charlie   Dennis
           L
Xenu      Yawgmoth  Zorkmid

Charlie, the paladin, wants to defend Dennis, the mage. Now, anyone that wants to attack Dennis gets attacked by Charlie and/or Charlie takes the hit instead.

Code: Select all

Alice     Bob       Charlie P Dennis
           L
Xenu      Yawgmoth  Zorkmid

(Obviously, you want to arrange the names in a circle so that anyone can target anyone else without having to draw a line through another person's name.)

Alice, the rogue, gets a bonus for attacking Yawgmoth, because he's locked down, which makes it easier for her to get in a sneak attack.

You can come up with systems like this that keep in a lot of spacing rules and battlefield control without getting encumbered by having to use actual minis / store real positions. Sometimes you'll get scenarios that don't make much sense- but oh well. Since terrain is abstracted out, it's harder to use, but could easily be replaced by RPing and/or a "tactical terrain use" skill, where you get some bonus based on your ability to maneuver through the battlefield / pin down your opponents that's just modeled as a bonus to normal rolls rather than a "yep, the orc can reach you" or "nope, the orc can't reach you." (This even gives you another flavor for hit/miss descriptions; instead of "the orc swings wide!" or "the orc's sword clangs off your shield!" you can pepper in "you manage to get to the other side of the table of the orc, frustrating his attempts to slash you!")

Arguments about where people were/are are overruled with "it's a battle, people move around a lot." If there's some location or object that's critical, put it on the sheet of paper and give people a way to draw lines to it ("I'm standing by the lever, ready to attack anyone who uses it!").

[maybeagnostic]

That's pretty interesting, I'd definitely like to test the setup in a game sometime but I don't really see how keeping track of a constantly shifting (large) set of overlapping multi-colored lines is simpler than a battle grid.

[Gelsamel]

On the topic of minis. Why not use a laptop and maptool or some other battle coordinator thing?



Anyway, reading up on the magic system in Ars Magica... I wonder if there is an easy way to work that spell system into something like 4e? Mostly because I really really like 4e.



I was thinking something like:
-Introduce some sort of mana/prana system (perhaps a derived statistic based off primary statistics, maybe introduce some feats to increase it or affect mana/prana pools). This could be similar to how Psionic Power points are setup. But I suspect will be a much larger number since these points would power regular spells too.
-Introduce spell cost system based on spell effects to easily balance them with encounter/daily/at-will powers (although at-wills would still have a cost so they may be slightly stronger). Again, spell costs could be similar to how power points are used. It seems like it should be fairly easy to invent balanced spell costs based off the damage dice, number of targets, technique/form affinity, whatever.
-Removing all the current magic classes, all magic is preformed as hermetic magic using a system similar to Ars Magica magic.



Principles on which the magic casting will be based:
Equivilent Exchange: The magic that would be preformed by players would not be "True Magic" which makes the impossible possible (Creo ex nihilo, True Ressurection, True Immortality, etc.) so all magical feats incur a material or energy cost at the very least equivilent to some arbitrary measure of how much 'stuff' the magical feat does. You may be able to shoot a fireball with just mana/prana but you'd probably need a material cost and also mana/prana to regenerate someone's limb.

Affinities: Based off the Ars Magica Techniques and Forms, magi should be able to choose techniques and forms to specialise in, which would reduce the cost to cast spells, explained as the magi being more efficient at converting the material/energy cost into the spell. This allows characters to make magi that are close to whatever class they want to play just by choosing Techniques and Forms that those classes would be associated with (Druids with Herbam and Animal forms, for instance). In terms of world building, affinities could be due to some sort of intrinsic nature within people (people just randomly are associated with forms/techniques) or bloodlines of magi (House Whoever being associated with the Ignem form).

Magic is Hard and Complex: Magic takes lots of training and is complex as hell. Skilled mages could probably pull off basic low level combat spells without the need for a huge amount of preperation. However, very powerful spells (or magi who aren't skilled, or don't have any affinity for magic) would require the inscribing of magic circles to work as a focus/control/manipulator for the magical energies. A player could even make a magi who isn't great at magic but spends a lot of time preparing magic circles on paper talismans for use in battle (ie. they're not skilled enough to control the magical energies for a simple fireball, but they wrote out a good hundred or two paper talismans with the appropriate magic circle to allow them to whip out the talisman and use the spell in battle easily). Maybe particularly strong magi could use those shiney instant runes to preform strong magic without preperation.

Magic is available to everyone: Despite being hard and complex, magic should, in general, be available to anyone. As long as you can go through the apporpriate steps, even if you don't have the skill to do it, the magic should work if the magic is controlled by a magic circle. That being said, a character may not have enough mana to cast a spell (I do not suggest Cast from HP ), or may not be able to get into the appropriate mindset to initiate the spell with the incantation. Basically, you don't have to be special to do magic. But you probably do have to be special to do it well.



On spell costs:
Spell cost will generally be made up of two different things.
Mana/Prana: Life Force, Magical Energy, whatever. You need it to cast spells, the stronger/harder the spell, the higher the energy cost. Prestidigitation type effects may not cost anything significant, or just some minimum cost.

Material Costs: Generally for higher level spells, or complex non-combat rituals... you may need to provide a material cost to complete the spell. This might be just literally chemicals, compounds, or other things. I guess in general they'd have to be similar to whatever the magic is going to produce.

Magical Focus: The preperation or drawing of magic circles, this isn't a cost in the terms of a cost that is required to fuel the spell, it's just something the magic user might need to do. Preperation can replace a skill deficit, if you can't control the forces but you can initiate the spell and pay the costs then this preperation lets you cast it. In this way most people should be able to cast low level magic if the magic is prepared beforehand. However non magi may not have enough mana/prana or may not be able to initiate higher level spells even if they are prepared beforehand.

There is a third 'cost' but they're less an actual cost in terms of the equivilent exchant but just something that taxes the magic user.

Incantations: Mostly mystic poem things. They're less "Divine Words" that are required to actually manifest the magic and more chants that help the magi get into the right 'state of mind' to cast the spell. This means the incantations will be different for different people and different flavours of magi. The druid will tend to talk about nature and shit, a psyopath serial killer magi might spout bloody poems, etc. The harder or more powerful the spell the longer the incantation.

'Flavour' can be the literal in-universe explanation for the existance of magi who appear to be of a 'different class'. Druids are Wizards are Sorcerors are Mages are etc. etc. They all do the same magic (with different affinities/prefered spell types) they just have a different aesthetic.



Possibilities:
Feats: Increase mana/prana feats, affinity feats (reduce costs for certain techniques/forms), reduced incantation (increased control of the magical energies) or speed incantations (Just speaking faster for the same effect), speed preperation (quick drawer), a feat that increases your mana/prana pool a lot but forces you to rely on magic circles for all spells (In-world this could be the shtick of a specific house/bloodline of casters).

Paragon Paths: Increased Affinity Paths, Magi who uses Instant Runes, Magi who specialise in Cast from HP or convert HP to prana/mana. Magi that specialises in low level spells.

Epic Destinies: True Magic anyone? Use of 'Divine Words' to superceed incantation/preperation (these -would- be super magical words that most people can't understand that would manifest the magic directly, although would not circumvent prana/mana cost... completely at least).

World/Plot Points/Stories: Magi Bloodlines (so many story possibilities in this, ranging from stuff to do with inbreeding to keep the bloodlines pure to generic house wars and conspiracy stuff). Artificial mechanisms for increasing people's mana (maybe unethical experiments to try and make regular people better magical soldiers). Mass production of preprepared magical circles to supply a militaristic state. Organisations conspiring to cast epic magic that requires many casters (due to prana/mana requirements) and huge and complex magic circles. Traditionalist Household/Bloodline-valuing magi vs individualist/merit-valuing magi. Trying to attain true magic or the ability to use divine words, stuff like that. This world could also easily include stuff like homunculi and alchemists as they'd be easily related to this magical system.



Any thoughts? Possible complications, issues or downsides? These ideas are basically a fusion of some of the ideas from Ars Magica and the Nasuverse's functional magic. I think a good magic theory allows for more interesting world and gameplay and the idea of Techniques and Forms from Ars Magica allows essentially an infinite variety of spells for players to tinker with while hopefully not being too difficult to balance.

[Yakk]

Just have a melee. For the most part, people in the melee are all able to attack each other.

You can have more than one melee, but that is rare.

Mark type mechanics aren't that tricky to add on. Protecting a "direction" while in a melee isn't hard to mechanic up -- and situational modifiers to distinguish between a narrow door and a wide open field on how hard that protecting is wouldn't be all that tricky either.

[Vaniver]

That's pretty interesting, I'd definitely like to test the setup in a game sometime but I don't really see how keeping track of a constantly shifting (large) set of overlapping multi-colored lines is simpler than a battle grid.

You don't even need the lines, actually. Just get a bunch of multicolored poker chips and tape numbers to them. Green are protection, red are lockdowns, etc., and the numbers (or pictures or names) represent the source of the effect. You have a limited number of chips, based on your character's specialization, and you move them from name to name as the battle progresses.

Anyway, reading up on the magic system in Ars Magica... I wonder if there is an easy way to work that spell system into something like 4e? Mostly because I really really like 4e.

The problem with porting anything into 4e is that there are really only 4 classes in 4e: defender, striker, leader, and controller. You can blend two classes, and there are different flavors for each class, but everything is roughly similar. Importantly, the action economy is the same for pretty much everyone- you have a limitless supply of weak (but cool) actions, a limited supply of medium (and cooler) actions, and then a very limited supply of powerful (and awesome) actions. Everyone's supply of actions scales at the same rate.

As soon as you throw magic into the mix (real magic, not "my ranged attack uses radiant damage instead of physical and an orb instead of a crossbow"), then balance goes out the window. Creative mages can find effective solutions to almost any problem, and quickly outshine people who just do damage. If you have a system where out-of-combat preparation can help in combat, then all balance goes out the window- in 3rd edition, a favorite trick of mine was to use downtime to put explosive runes on an object many times. (It'd take 32 castings of the spell to kill a Red Great Wyrm with average rolls, so take two months writing a very detailed letter, deliver it to the dragon, and then collect your loot and experience.) The DM then either has to shut down successful trickses one by one (only one set of runes per object!), creating an adversarial dynamic, or let PCs who are good at such trickses dominate PCs who are bad at them.

Now, such games can be great fun. But they and 4e are fundamentally different beasts, and trying to mix them seems like it will end poorly.

[SecondTalon]

On the topic of minis. Why not use a laptop and maptool or some other battle coordinator thing?

Most maptools I've used are a pain in the ass to get set up and working right, and not that great at moving around.

Which is goddamn strange, as it's basically just image layers.

There's also the issue of scaling out and in quickly - out to see the whole field, in to actually move around usefully. Given the usual size table and such my groups gather at (6 foot long being the small one, I think my random game is on a 12 foot conference table), a laptop screen - even a large one - is too small.

Now, were it not a pain in the ass to have one, a oldschool overhead projector with colored translucent pips might work, but then you need a large single color wall and possibly to dim the lights so you can't read the character sheet.

[Gelsamel]

As soon as you throw magic into the mix (real magic, not "my ranged attack uses radiant damage instead of physical and an orb instead of a crossbow"),

That's why I want to change magic in 4e.

then balance goes out the window. Creative mages can find effective solutions to almost any problem, and quickly outshine people who just do damage.

This is why I want all players to be able to cast spells. Fighters and Rogues will have a derived prana/mana statistic just like magi will (although probably lower since they may not have access to feats or will have lower primary stats that determine mana).

If you have a system where out-of-combat preparation can help in combat, then all balance goes out the window- in 3rd edition, a favorite trick of mine was to use downtime to put explosive runes on an object many times. (It'd take 32 castings of the spell to kill a Red Great Wyrm with average rolls, so take two months writing a very detailed letter, deliver it to the dragon, and then collect your loot and experience.) The DM then either has to shut down successful trickses one by one (only one set of runes per object!), creating an adversarial dynamic, or let PCs who are good at such trickses dominate PCs who are bad at them.

This wouldn't work in my system because the character would need to be in the local area of the magic circle to initiate the magic and must still supply the prana for the spell. Preperation doesn't allow fully formed spells to be cast for only the preperation time, preperation is just a way to make up a skill deficit. As in: You can't supply the prana/mana beforehand then wait to regen, write another, wait to regen, write another then cast them without using mana. If you write 32 castings of a spell then you need 32 times the amount of mana to cast a single one of those spells to cast them, you need to be close by to initiate the castings (ie. you must activate the rune/magic circle with your own will), and initiating the castings takes time (assuming no incantation it's a standard action, with incantations you'd need multiround actions). If the 32 runes you write are for one extra powerful spell--in my system there isn't a reason to choose 32 castings of a 1d4 spell rather than just try to cast a 32d4 spell.... the former would take 32 standard actions whereas the latter might only take 20 something actions worth of incantation (depending on how you balance it, which shouldn't be too hard), the latter would also probably take less mana than 32 individual spells (as it's more efficient to do one big conversion with one loss percentage than 32 conversions with a loss percentage on all 32 uses).

The reason you can't do something like that can actually be explained by stealing and changing a bit of the magical theory from the Nasuverse. Namely the idea of 'Counterforce' (think of magical friction). In my setting you wouldn't be able to set up precasted spells at all, let alone ones with trigger conditions (like mines, or runes that activate when held by a specific character, or a rune that activates to trap someone who walks over it). The reason for that is that the spell must be actively maintained (which requires locality) because the 'Counter Force' of the world/universe works against the existence of magical effects. If you create a bounded field of a magical shield then you need to actively maintain it or it will disappear quickly (sustain minor for most spells, but for higher powered multiturn spells it will be sustain standard). This explains why magical effects are not permenant... magical illusions disappear after a while. You can't just make a magical illusion and go home and it'll just sit there for all time, counter force dissipates it quickly if it doesn't receive a supply of prana.

The act of preperation doesn't precast the spells, it just allows people who aren't good enough to control, convert, and direct the magical energies of the spell to allow the magical circle to do it for them (everyone will have spells that are too hard for them to cast without magic circles). They still need to supply the prana/material cost to initiate the spell, they still need to provide an incantation to get themselves into an extremely specific state of mind (Standard actions are single line incantations, so most spells will be this. Minor actions will require no incantation. Multiturn incantations for spells you can simply allow a damage multiplier to provide some average per turn damage that fits with the level of spell).

As an exmaple if players at their level do about 2d8 damage with dailies and 1d8 damage with at wills and a character wants to do a spell something at the power of a daily... then it may take a 4 line incantation to do something that powerful, but 4 turns for 2d8 is stupid. So add on 3d8 for 3 turns of at wills and make the spell 5d8 for average of 22.5 damage over 4 turns. Or, maybe because it's magic and there are risks with incanting for 4 turns you can add a little bit more damage.

Anyway you could invent some rule that factored in damage, status change, save DC against status change and the caster's affinity for the form and technique used to easily figure out the prana costs or the difficulty level of the spell (and thus whether they need to use longer incantations or magic circles).

In general, combat oriented spells will mostly be energy projection (just take prana) and won't require complex magic circles because you're just shooting out energy (so fireballs will generally just take prana and a short incantation)--generic healing will be similar. However animating the inanimate (corpses, golems, whatever) or binding magical creatures, or complex healing like regenerating limbs will generally require the use of magical circles because it will generally be too hard for the magi to control the magical energies in a way to be able to do complex tasks in real time like this... so they prepare the control mechanisms before hand.

Also, the magic circles would also have to follow a rule of locality/scale. Generic energy projection like magic missile or fireball would only require a small source so a magic circle written on a paper talisman will work fine. But a paper talisman will be too small to regenerate a limb even if you were good enough at drawing the extremely complex circle that would allow regeneration, because the magic circle would have to on the scale of the effect produced. So it would need to be an amount bigger than the limb you wish to regenerate and the person would have to be placed such that their non-existant limb is at the focus of the circle. Similarly animating a corpse or bones requires a circle that encompasses the bones. Though, generally many small magic circles may be used to effectively create a lager magic circle (by placing them in a way that playing connect the dots with the focus of each circle creates a larger effective magic circle).

There would also be specific costs associated with drawing the magic circle too in that they cant just be drawn with any old ink, but may need to be made from blood or some sort of chemical compound (this could be counted as a material cost). But for low level spells it may be something easily available, like maybe earth oriented spells need magic circles drawn in clay, and maybe fire spells need circles drawn in ash, whatever. Perhaps the rule would be that the circle has to be made from something within the domain of the form of spell you're going to cast (so ink would be fine for, say, water spells. Charcoal or ash for fire spells, clay or chalk for earth. There may be 'special' ingredients used for stuff like 'vim').

Now, of course, any magi who can (with enough time allowed for spell creation) choose to cast a spell that produces the effect of anything that is physically possible (the way the Nasuverse explains it, True Magic can do the impossible, the miraculous. Whereas magecraft, that magi use, can do things that are theoretically possible by science given infinite time and resources) is probably going to more powerful than the non magi classes simply due to being so so so much more versatile... but I don't think so much so that they'll totally ruin it for the other players.

Like I said, fighters and rangers and thiefs and knights will be able to use magic too, they will probably just have a low affinity and low prana scores... but maybe the player wants to make a magic fighter or something so they choose feats which give them affinity in some spells and invest in which ever primary statistics give increased prana? They probably won't be as versatile and powerful as a full magi but no one is expecting them to be. A full magi without mana is useless and possibly even a detrement to the team so someone who trades some of that for at least some skill in non magical fighting is going to have a lower mana pool and lower affinities and thus be a worse magi in exchange for being able to hit things well. Full fighters may still have enough mana to use magic circles on paper talismans to shoot a fireball or two or make a bridge of earth to cross a gap or preform some healing but not much more.





Edit: Ooh a found a site that tries to get Ars Magica magic to fit with d20. This might be helpful.

[Jessica]

d20 (as in 3.X open source gaming) is quite different from 4e.

I commend your attempt to change how 4e works. I hope you can find a way to do what you would like with it, but it will probably take a lot of work, and possibly breaking down the entire system to it's basics and rebuilding it with a non-action system in place, or a way to balance actions to non-action based effects. Not impossible, but difficult.

[Vaniver]

That's why I want to change magic in 4e.

My point is that 4e works like it does because magic is just a different flavor of the same basic character classes. If you want to play a game where magic is inherently different from fighting normally, play a 3.X game- they'll do it a lot better than trying to port their magic system into 4E.

In my setting you wouldn't be able to set up precasted spells at all, let alone ones with trigger conditions (like mines, or runes that activate when held by a specific character, or a rune that activates to trap someone who walks over it).

What about magic items?

Actions that require multiple turns to pull off are a terrible plan. They're boring for the player to use (I... continue casting my spell), they reduce flexibility (the battle will look very different round 1 and round 4), they cause friction because the party may be working cross purposes ("Wait, if you kill that guy then my meteor won't have a worthwhile target!"), they're liable to be disrupted (and now the DM is in the awkward position of either targeting the magi and neutralizing the character, making them a bad defender, or continually ignoring the artillery that ends fights) and because monsters get weaker rather than stronger as the fight goes on, it'll likely be wasted ("Wait... you guys killed everything in 3 turns while I stood there chanting? That's cool, I guess." or "Take 50 damage!" "Ok, it had 20 hp left, it dies."). There's also the problem of surprise- the party finds a vantage point where they can see the monsters (say, a sleeping dragon), and all drop their entire prana pool at once in the first round of actual combat (after quietly chanting for eight turns). Or the problem of playing enemy magi ("wait, why don't I just scry and fry the party?").

[pseudoidiot]

Yeah, I can't help but feel like if you want magic that drastically different than what's available, maybe you need to find a game that has something really close to what you want. Then again, I don't like hacking games, so if you want to put forth that much effort, more power to you.

The other option is find a game that explicitly gives you the tools to make your own magic system within the rules. There may be more than one, but the Magic Burner supplement for Burning Wheel not only gives some additional magic variants, but lays out exactly how to define your own magic system to work within the game.

[Jessica]

Yeah, I can't help but feel like if you want magic that drastically different than what's available, maybe you need to find a game that has something really close to what you want. Then again, I don't like hacking games, so if you want to put forth that much effort, more power to you.

The other option is find a game that explicitly gives you the tools to make your own magic system within the rules. There may be more than one, but the Magic Burner supplement for Burning Wheel not only gives some additional magic variants, but lays out exactly how to define your own magic system to work within the game.

Well, there is the game ars magicka he talked about. Might be worth picking up and just playing that.

Edit: I mean, he can if he doesn't want to modify a game to be similar to it. But, I think he really does want to do a modification, in which case, I wish him well.

[pseudoidiot]

I've heard good things about the Ars Magicka RPG. Never had the chance to play it, though.

[Garm]

I've heard good things about the Ars Magicka RPG. Never had the chance to play it, though.

Ars is a strange beast. The magic system is pretty cool but the game is ultimately boring (to me anyway). The wizards are super powerful but spell research takes about a millionity years and you end up spending all of your time looking for ingredients for potions to make you live longer. Each couple of sessions represents a season (your basic unit of research time) and each player generally has more than one character, a wizard and another wizard's henchman, since when your wizard is researching things he's pretty much out of the action.

[Ralith The Third]

I really hope this isn't the wrong place for this, but would anyone be interested in a three point five game sometime? Via email, RP heavy, any pace we can, probably with I'm group meet ups?

[halbarad]

Anyone have much experience of co-GM'ing games?

A friend and I have decided to give it a go, it's something both of us have wanted to do for a little while and I haven't run a game in a few years (been in plenty though).

We are going to play oWoD and have given our players a choice of what to play as: Vampires, Daemons or Hunters. They get to pick the two they would like to play most and then we'll split them up between the two highest and play them off against each other in some plot that will be decided by whatever they want to play as. We've got ideas of what to do for each possible match up.

Just wondering if anyone has any general advice or things to avoid doing in this sort of situation? We are intending for the players to eventually face off against each other in person and the smartest/strongest will win (the alternate of them teaming up to defeat a big bad was ruled out by me due to most of the factions not having a good reason to join up, and bloodbaths between players is always fun).

[Belial]

(the alternate of them teaming up to defeat a big bad was ruled out by me due to most of the factions not having a good reason to join up, and bloodbaths between players is always fun).

Shouldn't that be for the players or their characters to decide? I mean, vampires and the fallen especially are huge manipulators. The idea of being able to predict exactly how their scheming little brains are going to go from before the game even starts strikes me as hubris. I could totally see those two groups teaming up while each considering the others their pawns.

[halbarad]

(the alternate of them teaming up to defeat a big bad was ruled out by me due to most of the factions not having a good reason to join up, and bloodbaths between players is always fun).

Shouldn't that be for the players or their characters to decide? I mean, vampires and the fallen especially are huge manipulators. The idea of being able to predict exactly how their scheming little brains are going to go from before the game even starts strikes me as hubris. I could totally see those two groups teaming up while each considering the others their pawns.

That's a fair point, I think we more want to angle for facing off against each other as it's something our group doesn't really have much experience of and would be good to see how they handle it. It's also a nice challenge for us from a story point of view to try to keep the players working against each other without introducing a common threat.

I guess I'll have to wait and see what the players would like to play as.

[SecondTalon]

The better co-DM games I've seen are where the two in charge are either in nigh-perfect sync, or the compleat each other - like a world builder who barely understands the rules pairing with an not so creative rules lawyer tactical genius. World builder tells the story and has npcs react realistically, Creed runs the combats in a way that makes level 12 people nearly shot themselves in fear when confronted by kobold or whatever the runt monster happenst to be, as the world built is one in which kobold tribes hold cities hostage.