Posts
I think that if you want to get away from slots, you almost have to remove the idea of spell "levels".I'm not so sure about the need to eliminate spell levels, but let's talk about how to do that without adding a spell point system. I haven't seen the Warhammer Fantasy spell system (I played in a first edition game once, but don't recall us getting any spells.) However, the comment about fumbling makes me think about risks. I've already mentioned using risks to make more interesting cursed items, and even used risks in the example magic items I've been posting. So why not balance spells in terms of risks instead of levels or spell point costs? Every spell requires rolling 2d6; on doubles, something unfortunate happens. What happens depends on the spell, but the more powerful spells would involve bigger risks.
Take a look at systems like HARP (yes, it is a point system, but great for spell scaleing), or Warhammer Fantasy RP (unlimited spells, but each attempt has a chance to 'fumble' the cast with disasterous results), etc.
Once you remove the artificial spell levels in D20, you have much more freedom to create the magic system you desire.
As a rule of thumb, the risk involved should be related to the normal effect of the spell. Simple attack spells would probably just involve a risk of harming the caster: Burning Hands might accidentally catch the caster's clothing or hair on fire, for example. Divinations might run the risk of attracting the attention of an enemy. Unseen Servant might risk unleashing a poltergeist.
If you want a Vancian spell memorization system, the risk for the simplest, safest spells is forgetting the spell, requiring re-memorization. More powerful spells risk forgetting the spell and the additional, unfortunate effect.
Really powerful spells could have an additional risk just to learn the spell. One example would be Call of Cthulhu-style spells, with a risk of minor or major insanity as a result of studying such baleful magics. For a more swords & sorcery approach, studying magic may risk corruption effects, distorting the sorcerer's body with physical defects or invoking curses, which would invoke risk rolls under specific situations.
The top of the spell pyramid would be apocalyptic-level spells with three risks: one to cast the spell, one to learn the spell, and one to merely look at the inscription or magic sigils of the spell in a grimoire. Every time the magic user attempts to prepare such a spell, there's a risk of something bad happening, ranging from the minor (forgets other memorized spells) through the major (temporary curse until the spell is actually used) to the extreme (summons a demon or causes a catastrophe.)
4 comments:
> the more powerful spells
I believe implies levels, even if you don't call them levels. you even mention "apocalyptic-level" later.
To me levelless spells meant each spell describes a generic effect and effects vary by caster level "fire attack, 1d6 per level". Or, generic effect and caster can pump as much vis, mana, risk, etc as they want.
Most systems like that are point based. But they could also be die roll modifier based. d20 casting check >= 10, -1 modifier for each step range, duration, area, damage is increased.
And really spell lists by level are that, just precaculated for a specific set of range, duration, area, and damage.
"Effects varying by level" implies level, as well. I took Banesfinger's idea of removing spell levels to mean specifically the numbers, not to approximate feelings of more powerful and less powerful. If you go the other route, you can only get "levelless" magic by making all spells equal in power, with no increase in power at all, either due to experience, spell points, or special preparation.
> "Effects varying by level" implies level, as well.
Character level, different.
I was going to make the point in last post that all these methods are just variations of "providing increasing power as character gains experience". And unless you get rid of character levels (or similar mechanic) you're stuck with having levels somewhere no matter how much you obscure that fact.
Just to be clear I'm not "criticizing" or being against you're methods (some of which I quite like). Rather, I'm offering alternatives/other view.
You've really gotten close to describing Warhammer Fantasy RPG's magic system. You can cast unlimited spells, but each cast has a risk of failure (fumble tables).
Now, speaking to power levels, WFRPG is a level-less system. But not all spells are equal in power (they each have a rating). You roll multiple dice (based on skill) and try to beat a Target Number for the spell. More powerful spells have higher targets, and thus require more and more dice to beat the TN. More dice means a greater chance of rolling doubles (or triples) which results in spell fumbles.
This system has two very interesting effects that are not obvious until you see them in actual play:
1) While those used to Vancian-style magic may drool over unlimited spells, the spell fumbles removes 'artificial' limits and makes players think very hard about the risks of casting too often. Magic becomes feared (which may or may not work for some settings).
2) Rolling multi-dice for spells and avoiding doubles/triples is a much different mechanic than normal melee attacks. Thus it makes casting magic "feel" different than swinging a sword.
Post a Comment