Ethereal Components

The way I run magic in D&D, M-Us use common, easy-to-get “material components” as spell ingredients during their spell prep (not during spell casting.) This helps explain why there is even a need for spell prep and why it is usually done between adventures rather than during them.

But one particular idea I’ve had about this spell prep is: some spell prep involves using a material object to make a temporary ethereal duplicate of that object that the spell caster “carries” with them, as if it were equipment. Examples of this for 1st level spells:

Hold Portal (object: iron spike)

Casting the spell wedges an invisible spike under the door, preventing the door from moving for a short period of time.

Shield (object: wooden shield)

Summons an invisible shield between the caster and opponents the caster is facing at the time of casting.

Magic Missile (object: arrow)

Summons an invisible arrow or large dart into the caster’s hand that can be thrown immediately at an opponent.

Light (object: lit candle)

When prepped, the light from the candle is “stored” ethereally, attached to whatever is holding the lit candle (M-U’s hand, end of a staff, etc.) When cast, the light becomes visible above the attachment point and moves with it. Max duration = max burn time for a candle.

1st level spells would only be able to bring back one quality of the object used (like the light of a candle, or the obstruction ability of an iron spike.) The object itself would not appear (not a conjuration, in other words,) so you couldn’t use Hold Portal to summon spikes to use as climbing gear, for example. The effect is short-lived.

3rd level spells would allow actual items or material to be stored ethereally and conjured when needed.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Portable Holes in a One-Plane Universe

There’s a question about portable holes on the OD&D forums: do you treat it as a Bag of Holding, or just a temporary hole? The question assumes in both cases that there’s an extra-dimensional space involved, as mentioned in the Greyhawk supplement.

But I thought: What if there isn’t?

I’ve written before about how I prefer a one-plane cosmology with a material world that has additional states of matter beyond solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. To maintain that, there couldn’t be any extra-dimensional spaces under my cosmology. So where does the hole part of a portable hole come from? Where do things inside the hole go when it is removed?

How I interpret Portable Holes:

• Turns a ten-foot long cylinder of connected solid material into ethereal matter.
• The effect stops when it hits liquid, gas, or any other non-solid material and does not continue, even if solid matter resumes before the ten-foot range is reached.
• Objects or living beings that enter the hole at this point aren’t transformed. They are just normal objects occupying space previously filled with solid matter.
• When the hole is removed, any ethereal matter tries to return to its solid state. If something is already in the same space and can’t be pushed out, it remains ethereal until that space is no longer occupied.

This means that if someone is crawling through a Portable Hole through a stone wall when the hole is removed, they become embedded in stone. They will suffocate, if they need air to breathe. Meanwhile, there’s an ethereal stone duplicate of them occupying the same position. When they are removed from that position, the stone reappears. If the surrounding stone is no longer there, you wind up with a statue of a crawling person.

There are some other weird situations that could happen, but the general principle is that two solid objects or two ethereal objects can’t occupy the same space at the same time, but a solid object and an ethereal object can occupy the same space.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

How Many Miracles Will Your God Grant?

Here’s an expansion of Clerics Without Spells. my rules for using reaction rolls for clerics casting spells on the fly. These days, I assume spells prepared beforehand (“memorized”) can be cast without risk of spell failure. But there’s a couple situations where a cleric prays for spells:

• When preparing/memorizing those spells,
• When casting a spell that hasn’t been memorized,
• When praying for a miracle (higher spell level than they can memorize.)

Religious characters who aren’t clerics can also pray for miracles.

So what if you don’t want to use a crude “all spells granted/no spells granted” approach?

This table should take care of it.

2d6 Roll	Reaction	Detailed Explanation
2	Fall from Grace	No spells granted until character atones at a shrine or temple.
3-4	Divine Wrath	If any spells are granted, they are at least two levels below max level.
5-6	Divine Impatience	Some spells may be granted, but not those at max level or those one level lower.
7-8	Divine Disfavor	Most spells granted, but not those at max level.
9-10	Divine Favor	All spells up to max level are approved.
11-12	A Miracle Is Granted	Spell one level higher than normal granted on one-time basis. Does not apply to prepared spells.
13+	A Great Miracle Is Granted	Spell two levels higher than normal granted on one-time basis. Does not apply to prepared spells.

Max Level refers to the maximum spell level a cleric can prepare beforehand. For example, a 2nd level cleric’s max level is 1, a 4th level cleric’s max level is 2. Max level is half cleric level, rounded down. (officially, OD&D diverges from that after 5th level, and other D&D versions tinker with it, but this is the quick and dirty replacement I use.)

Miracles here are spells that the cleric or worshipper doesn’t cast themselves, but ask to be cast. Any spell above max level is a miracle.

The table is basically the standard reaction roll with the 2 x (cleric level - spell level) formula built into the results already, so no calculation is necessary.

Despite the wording (Favor, Disfavor, Impatience, Wrath,) spells and miracles granted are not considered absolute proof that the cleric or worshipper’s belief in their god is justified. It’s all a matter of faith, not objective truth.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Iconic Magic-Using Archetypes

Because of a comment JB made on the previous post, I created a companion chart.

These are magical archetypes rather than classes. They are loosely defined, compared to classes, with boundaries not even as rigid as I've shown here. They are the four basic approaches to magic:

Dabblers, brought up by JB, are those who aren't dedicated to improving their magic. It's just something they occasionally use. They might not even be magic-users by class, but may just pick up a spell or two somewhere, or have an innate power either inherited or acquired by accident.

Scholars are those who acquire spells through study and practice. They form the bulk of what most people think of as D&D magic-users: professional thaumaturges with an arcane library.

Mystic is a perhaps inaccurate label for those dedicate to exploring all that is possible with magic. They may be researchers, experimenters, or mad wizards, locked away in some tower somewhere, amassing huge magical libraries and binding hordes of demons, elementals, and other spirits to their will.

Power-Seekers was the most neutral-sounding label I could think of for those who seek power rather than knowledge. They don't care how it works or what they have to do the get it. They might study, if that's what they have to do, but if they find a shortcut, they will take it.

The Iconic Magic-Using Classes

I’m still occasionally working – well, half-working – on ways of making the magician (magic-using class) easy to modify on the fly. The way I imagine it working is that you offer players only three classes (talent, hero, magician) and when a player says “can’t I be a [more specific class concept]?” You reply “Sure! Just take one of those classes and we’ll make these changes.”

For magic-using classes, you can make superficial changes to how spells are recovered, how they are cast, and how they are dispelled and that will cover a lot of variations. But before I even go there, I think I need to start with defining iconic magical types. Not “iconic in the history of D&D”, but “iconic in literature and folklore”. I really don’t like some of the standard D&D class definitions, which seem to focus on mechanics, and I prefer to lead players away from thinking about mechanics.

My current iconic class concepts start with this simple progression from “arcanely academic” to “selfishly practical”:

• Magicians are your standard OD&D magic-using class, with loads of spells studied from books.
• Witches are naturally-gifted magic-users who can supplement their inborn talents with either dominance over spirits or arcane learning.
• Warlocks are self-made magic-users who have taken their powers from others.

It’s important to note that the WotC warlock class would sometimes fall within the bounds of “warlock” as I define it, but my definition is broader. A warlock, in my mind, is the kind of magic-user seen in some fantasy lit who steals magical power from those who have acquired it through birth, blessing, or training. So, more like warlocks in “Charmed”, or what the MCU-version of Baron Mordo seems to be heading towards. Getting powers from pacts could be thought of as a variation on this.

There’s basically a two-axis concept grid hiding behind those three core iconic concepts:

• Power Taken From Others vs. Power Developed Within Oneself (Dependency Axis)
• Flexible Spell Options vs. Limited Power Choices (Variety Axis)

Scholarly Magicians are Low Dependency, High Flexibility. Power-Hungry Warlocks are High Dependency, Low Flexibility. Witches are dead center, with a limited set of natural powers supplemented by magical training. You can see this easier on this diagram.

Explanation of other iconic classes on the chart:

• Sorcerers for me are not the WotC class (which probably resembles my concept of witches more than anything else.) They are instead academics who know some spells, but expand their power by using their knowledge to bind spirits and demons to their will. They may also make pacts for more power, making some WotC warlock concepts fit better in that category.
• Necromancers get power by commanding spirits of the dead. There’s still more flexibility than warlocks, but not as much as standard magicians or sorcerers.
• Bards are highly variable in their fantasy lit representations, but I went with a more limited range of magic (songs that influence emotions and spirits) vs. a reliance on natural gifts + training. They could easily be up in the same position as witches, though.

Gray entries are not traditionally considered magic-users in D&D, but essentially that’s what they are.

• Psychics are basically witches who can’t learn additional spells in this schema.
• Priests typically get all their power from gods and can lose their power at the god’s whim.
• Godlings aren’t really a class, but represent where various beings like spirits and deities would fall: requiring some power taken from their worshippers, but being innately gifted as well and quite flexible in what they can do.

Any iconic character concepts that I missed?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Re-Vamped Spells: Invisibility

Another spell altered to fit in better with ideas about conceptual magic: invisibility.

Invisibility
Causes light to pass through the spellcaster to conceal their position until some action reveals it.

Thoughts:

• This is similar to but not quite an illusion. As long as there is no physical contact or visible movement, the caster can remain invisible for a long time.
• If the caster touches or attacks someone, throws a dagger, or even bumps into a chair or opens a door, this reveals the caster’s position and ends the spell.
• Anything worn or carried when the spell is cast is also made invisible, but only as long as the caster continues to wear or carry it. Throwing, dropping, or putting down an item makes the item and the caster visible.
• Other actions can reveal the caster’s location as well. For example, lighting a torch. flapping a fan to create a gust of air. Basically, anything that alters light or the environment around the caster ends the effect.
• Following from that principle: Food carried at the time the spell is cast becomes invisible, but eating it and causing it to be digested alters the food and the spellcaster, ending the spell.
• Sound, smell, or vibrations don’t automatically reveal location, but high Intelligence or Wisdom characters have a 5+ on 1d6 chance of figuring out a location and can try to grab or attack the caster. Creatures with sharp senses also get a chance to find invisible targets, or automatically spot them if their hit dice are higher than the caster’s level.
• Creatures that don’t use vision at all, or can operate completely without vision, ignore invisibility. However, there may be alternative ways to conceal odor or sound, eliminating that as a means of detection.
• A successful attack on an invisible being, even one that does no damage like throwing a bucket of water in their direction, will end the invisibility.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Re-Vamped Spells: Phantasmal Forces

This is the first in what may become an irregular series on altering spells, possibly for use with the ideas I had about conceptual magic. I want to start with illusions, and in particular Phantasmal Forces.

Phantasmal Forces
Causes insubstantial smoke, mist, light, or shadow to appear as any physical object or being the spellcaster can imagine, for as long as they can see and focus on it. The primary illusion can indirectly harm intelligent beings as long as they believe it, but touching it reveals the trick.

Some thoughts here:

• Instead of this being a form of mental domination, this spell makes something real appear as something else. Some other class like Mesmerist or Psychic might be able to create illusions purely with their mind.
• There has to be a target to transform visually, and it should be something that’s indistinct or even amorphous, even chaotic. When that target is somehow eliminated (wind blows away the smoke) or when the magician can no longer see the target, the illusion ends.
• Magicians can create this target in a couple ways, if they can’t find a viable target that already exists. In particular, they could burn something to create smoke, or use mirrors to direct a beam of light on the floor.
• There’s a primary illusion (the imaginary brick wall, a unit of illusory archers, an imaginary dragon) and incidental effects (dust and debris falling off the wall when it is hit by a catapult, arrows fired by the archers, flames flickering from the dragon’s nostrils.) The incidental effects can cause damage as long as the victim believes the illusion. Contact with the the primary illusion, however, does no damage, and the victim will feel that it’s not really there.
• If a player says “I don’t believe this!” or mentions something they notice about the situation that doesn’t make sense, compare their character’s Intelligence or Wisdom to the caster’s. If the player’s score is 2+ points higher, they automatically disbelieve. If it’s equal or within 1 point, roll 5+ on 1d6 to disbelieve.
• If something unexpected happens that could reveal the illusion, below average intellect spellcasters have to roll 5+ on 1d6 to adjust their illusion’s behavior quick enough to avoid an obvious inconsistency.
• Incidental effects that cause damage are risky because they may reveal flaws in the illusion. If a victim is hit by an arrow that does damage, and the victim tries to pull out the arrow afterwards, the arrow won’t be there, prompting disbelief. Fire, similarly, won’t burn anything but a living victim with at least animal intelligence, which causes disbelief. It’s better for a spellcaster to create a slinger throwing sling bullets than an archer, since it’s harder to spot flaws in the illusion.
• Melee attacks on illusory targets automatically reveal the illusion, but ranged attacks don’t. Use the spellcaster’s level as the creature’s hit points, but each successful attack does only 1 point unless the attack is a critical hit, in which case the illusion is revealed.
• Once one person disbelieves an illusion, they can reveal the illusion to all other observers. However, the caster can still maintain the illusion as a mere image. It will no longer cause damage or conceal anything, but for as long as the underlying target persists, the caster can maintain it. This could be used to entertain people, for example.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Conceptual Magic: Delays and Triggers

I’ve been doing a series of posts on conceptual magic, linked below:

• conceptual vs. mechanistic magic,
• further explanation (skippable,)
• nearly-permanent spells,
• areas of effect,
• range.

My boilerplate “too long, didn’t read” definition for the series has been:

“[Conceptual Magic] treats spell duration, range, area of effect, and other details not as stats, but as concepts: the spell lasts as long as a candle remains lit, or is cast at the point where a thrown talisman lands, or affects everyone who hears the magic words.”

So far, I’ve covered duration, area, and range. What other spell stats are available for conversion?

There’s spell level and saving throws, of course. But I consider these to be GM-facing mechanics, not player-facing mechanics. One of my design principles is that players should not be requesting classes, races, magic items, or spells based on what mechanics they’d like, but based on what they want to happen in the fantasy world.

“I want a spell that gives me a +5 to hit”

versus

“I want a spell that makes my hands as sharp as knives.”

So my inclination is not to let players research spells with better saving throws or lower than normal spell level, but instead set these details based on what the spell actually does or uses.

Another traditional stat is casting time. This may also be in the same category as spell level and saving throws, but to some extent casting time can be shortened based on other concepts being used in the spell, for example a circle of protection has a casting time that is partially governed by the time needed to draw the circle. This is a topic I’m still thinking over.

But there is one conceptual area similar to casting time that seems very player-facing: delays and triggers. If a spell caster wants a spell to take effect later instead of immediately, spell components could be used to tie the spell either to an event that acts like a timer or a condition that acts like a power button.

A lot of the same concepts used for spell duration would be useful for timers as well. A spell could be set to begin when a candle burns out, or when a flower blooms. Linking a spell to an egg could delay a spell until the egg hatches. A spell caster could even cast a spell on some kind of Rube Goldberg device, such as a flame burning through a rope to drop a packet of incense into a brazier so that the spell is delayed until the smoke fills the room.

Triggers would work basically like magical traps. The condition that triggers the spell becomes a tripwire. See the conditions for nearly-permanent spells as examples that could also be used to trigger the start of the spell effect, instead of the end. A 6th level spell, then, could have a total of six conditions total, which can be split between spell delay and spell dissipation, although some components of spells may naturally affect both.

The most used trigger is Magical symbol, glyphs, and runes, which can be used for 1st level spells and affects both the delay and the duration. Seeing or touching the symbol triggers the spell effect. The method of creating the symbol affects the duration:

• Symbols are written with ink on paper, vellum, or other material, and will end when the ink fades or the material bearing the symbol is destroyed.
• Glyphs are written with paint, but usually on a more durable surface, like a stone wall or floor. The spell ends when the paint peels, but the surface itself will probably last much longer than a piece of paper.
• Runes are etched into a surface, usually wood or stone, and must be scratched or chiseled off to dispel the effect.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Conceptual Magic: Range

I’ve been doing occasional posts in a series about “conceptual magic”, which treats spell duration, range, area of effect, and other details not as stats, but as concepts: the spell lasts as long as a candle remains lit, or is cast at the point where a thrown talisman lands, or affects everyone who hears the magic words. These are the previous posts on conceptual magic:

• conceptual vs. mechanistic magic,
• further explanation (skippable,)
• nearly-permanent spells
• areas of effect.

How would range be determined in a conceptual spell?

The base range is the caster’s self, a held object, or a single target within reach. Hostile magic requires a touch, but other magic only requires a gesture and glance towards the target. Concepts can effectively alter either the distance, the method of selection, or both.

Some of the area of effect concepts affect the range as well: incense or smoke can reach anyone in the same room, liquid sprays or splashes or smoke bombs affect targets within throwing range, candlelight/torchlight reaches to the edge of the illuminated area.

• Cast a spell while throwing a pebble (or other object.) Similar to throwing a smoke bomb or flask of liquid, but instead of the spell affecting multiple people touched by the smoke or splash, it affects one person touched by the thrown object, or in rare cases more, for example throwing a blanket that can cover two or more people.
• Cast a spell while reflecting a beam of light with a mirror. Similar to using a bare candle or torch, but using a mirror (or a shuttered lantern) a beam of light can be directed to a precise target over a longer distance.
• Cast a spell while ringing a loud gong or bell. All targets who can hear the bell are affected, which could mean a fairly long range.
• Cast a spell into the wind, on a river current, or under sunlight or moonlight. A very long range spell, but it requires other components to direct it. For example, allowing the wind to blow sand from your palm allows the spell to target someone standing on sand up to a league away.
• Cast a spell using a simulacrum of the target (doll, portrait.) May have a very long range indeed, but the figure uses to target the spell must include something that belongs to the target (piece of clothing, blood, hair) to make it effective. The more components involved, the greater the possible distance, but also the more times the spell must be cast; a spell cast on a target many league away might take hours or days to cast.
• Cast a spell on a specific distant location. Requires something that belongs to that location, for example topsoil from a farm, or a piece of something deliberately placed at that location, for example half of a talisman the caster has created.
• Cast a spell using the target’s true name. This can be used with short range conceptual components like candles or smoke to narrow the spell to specific targets, or it can be used with a simulacrum to extend a long range spell.

I’ve hinted at casting time being connected to distance for some spells, but I haven’t specified how yet. It’s something that needs to be worked out, but I’m thinking that for long-range spells, one league means one hour of casting time.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Conceptual Magic: Area of Effect

Delta’s blog had a post recently about the Massmorph spell analyzing the way the spell stats and description have changed over the various D&D editions. Fine detective work, but it got me thinking again about what I’ve called “conceptual magic”, defining spell duration, range, area of effect, and other such details not as stats, but in terms of concepts: the spell lasts as long as a candle remains lit, or is cast at the point where a thrown talisman lands, or affects everyone who hears the magic words. If that summary is too brief, feel free to check out these other posts on conceptual magic:

• conceptual vs. mechanistic magic,
• further explanation (which might be skippable,)
• nearly-permanent spells.

Anyways… Delta is more concerned with a very mechanistic wargames approach to magic, so it’s very important that the number of people turned into trees by Massmorph should match the area of effect. If 100 people can’t fit into the radius of the area of effect, that’s a serious flaw.

How would area of effect be determined in a conceptual spell?

The base area of effect is either the caster’s self or one person or object the caster can see and gesture towards. Hostile spells would specifically require a touch unless the range is modified (something I’ll have to think about for a future post.) To broaden the area of effect, the caster needs to use a concept that describes a larger area:

• Cast a spell while marking a circle using sand or charcoal. When the circle is complete, everything within the circle is affected. Larger circles affect more targets, but take longer when casting the spell.
• Cast the spell while burning incense or something that produces a lot of smoke. Everyone who breathes or is touched by the smoke is affected. Larger areas of effect require larger fires and more material to burn.
• Cast a spell with a spray of oil or wine. This could be done either by opening a flask and flinging its contents out, or with a brittle gourd or a hollowed-out eggshell filled with liquid. Only those splashed by the contents are affected.
• Cast the spell while throwing a small incendiary device, like flashpaper or a smoke bomb. Basically, a cross between the smoke option and the spray/splash option. Only those a few paces from the explosion would be affected.
• Cast the spell while brandishing a torch or candle made of special material. Affects everything the light touches. Hostile magic requires a magical ingredient, like a candle made from the tallow from the fat of a unicorn. Non-hostile magic only requires mundane ingredients, like sprinkling the torch with common powders prepared in advance by the magician before lighting it.
• Cast the spell while shouting through a horn or trumpet. Only those in front of the caster within the range of the sound are affected.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

The Gallery of Three Wishes

A long, long time ago – eight years, eleven months, and 27 days, to be exact – I casually mentioned that I don’t like thinking of “wishes” as things that you can “spend” to alter reality. Yesterday, for some reason, I started coming up with magic items that would illustrate this for players.

Introducing: The Gallery of Three Wishes. Each item on display has three wishes… but players may be surprised what the items actually do, and how different each item is.

Ring of Three Wishes

The ring is displayed on the finger of a plaster hand atop a pedestal. The sign of the pedestal says “RING OF THREE WISHES: Make circle with thumb and forefinger while wearing ring to activate.”

When activated, a tiny voice from the ring says “I wish I were a human being and not a ring! I wish I had a bag of coins! I wish I owned a farm!”

The ring can be activated multiple times.

Horn of Three Wishes

A sentinel’s signal horn on a pedestal with a sign reading “HORN OF THREE WISHES: Whisper wishes into horn.” The horn’s rim bears an inscription:

Listen to me with thine ear
And my wishes you will hear

When someone “listens” to the horn, they hear the last three wishes whispered into the horn. Nothing else special happens. Whispering a wish into the horn erases the oldest wish and adds the new wish to the list.

The horn is possibly useful as a communication device when the wish-maker is unable to ask someone for help directly, for example if being held captive, but allowed to send a “gift” to their liege along with a ransom demand.

Wand of Three Wishes

A bone wand with gold inlay in a display case with a sign that says “ELEMENTAL WAND OF THREE WISHES: Point wand at an element and make a wish.” A trained spell-caster will recognize the gold inlay symbols as being symbols of elemental water, air, and fire.

If someone aims the wand at water, air, or fire and commands it in the form of a wish, the substance will either move or perform some action it is normally capable of doing in accordance with the command. For example:

• I wish the air would blow the scroll to me: Raises a wind to blow the scroll towards the wish-maker.
• I wish the water would capsize that boat: Raises a wave that smashes into the boat.
• I wish the fire would die down: Extinguishes a fire over the course of a few minutes.
• I wish the fire would flare up: Causes a fire to burn brightly and increase in size, but at the cost of burning half as long.

Although the wand in a sense animates the three elements, it otherwise doesn’t cause unnatural events, like water turning into wine or molten gold. Other elements can’t be controlled, but some things might be controllable if they contain one or more of the three elements listed.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Travel Spellbooks

Related to the topic of emergency spell casting is the idea of “travel spellbooks”. These are spellbooks that are small enough to take into dungeons.

I never liked this idea.

Forget about the size factor. Yeah, I imagine spellbooks to be pretty sizable things, about the size of a shield… but there were portable books in the Middle Ages, mostly prayer books. More important is the way it redesigns the way spells are imagined to work.

Magicians aren’t supposed to be prepping spells in the middle of an adventure. They have a limited number of spells they can “take with them”, so to speak. If magicians have full access to every spell they know, there’s less of a challenge for the player, They aren’t making strategic decisions in advance and hoping they picked the right spell. And it makes the class more powerful compared to other characters. Would you let Fighters have access to a “travel armory” to refresh their arrow supply or swap ineffective weapons and armor? Or a “traveling merchant” with an infinite stock of equipment so they can buy some holy water and garlic in the middle of the dungeon which they just found out is swarming with vampires?

Also, if travel spellbooks exist, why aren’t all spellbooks travel spellbooks? Why bother with two sets of spellbooks? Why have scrolls, which is a sanctioned way for magicians to have extra spells, if they’re just going to have infinite spells anyways?

But there may be a way to have “travel spellbooks” without throwing out the existing spell system and class limitations. Let’s look at the two extremes: scrolls vs. spellbooks, to see where the travel spellbook would fit between the two.

Scrolls:

• Cost 100 coins per spell level
• Weigh no more than a dagger
• Contain a single spell
• Are consumed when used
• Can be used quickly (1 or more rounds)

Spellbooks:

• Cost 1000 coins x (2^Level) per spellbook
• Weigh about the same as a shield
• Contain all spells of a given level.
• Are not consumed when used
• Take longer to use (turns or hours)

A travel spellbook should be somewhere in the middle, in terms of cost and weight, and have at least one limitation from each extreme.

• Cost 200 coins x (2^Level) per spellbook
• Weigh about the same as two scrolls
• Contain a single spell
• Are not consumed when used
• Take longer to use (2d6 x Spell Level turns)
• (Use the Emergency Spell Casting rules to speed this up at the risk of variable results)

This makes a travel spellbook a way to have a small number of refreshable spells, but because of cost and weight, still enforces the need for players to make strategic decisions.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Emergency Spell Casting: Comparing Approaches

The Kernel in Yellow has posted a response to my emergency spellcasting article, so I thought it might be worthwhile to compare the two approaches and discuss tailoring things to your needs.

First: the blogger appears to have come to old school play via 5e, in contrast to my background in OD&D and 1e. Background influences your models when making new material. Consider the way we each used “spell slots”, for example.

• For 5e players, spell slots are a resource to be used. So, The Kernel in Yellow’s approach is to require one spell slot per emergency casting and allow additional slots to be “spent” to improve the spell.
• For me, “spell slot” is an artifact of the way we’re talking about the spell prep process and cannot be “spent” for any reason. So, I treat casting from a book as spell prep and ask "Should there be a difference if the caster were already ‘full’ of prepped spells?’

Another example is the way we handle ingredients. In 5e and even in 1e, spell ingredients are pre-defined and necessary. If you stick to that model, then you would want a way to handle finding ingredients in an emergency, as The Kernel in Yellow does. But in OD&D, almost no spells need ingredients when cast. I, however, assume there are untracked, undefined ingredients used during downtime.

Then we get to casting time. Do you start with regular spell casting as your model and balance emergency casting by making it slightly longer, but still viable as something you could cast in combat? Or do you start with spell prep times, normally undefined, and try to define them?

The tables we each use diverge a lot more. I don’t have a “spell does nothing” effect on my table, and the range of effects aren’t that extreme. 97% of the time, spell casters are going to get more or less the effect they want unless they rush things. Backfires are pretty difficult to get without divine intervention, as is the double-strength maximum result of Fantastic. Kernel in Yellow’s table is aimed more at penalizing emergency casting at least part of the time, to prevent it from being the go-to choice for spell casting. Plus, that Fireworks result is pretty extreme, causing the caster to lose 1 to 4 additional spells.

A side note: since I allow learning new spells via Read Magic, some “emergency” spell casting is really going to be experimenting with a spell the caster has never cast before. Sometimes, the spell will be unique and of little use anywhere but in the dungeon. This is one reason I didn’t want to lean too hard on penalizing spell casters who cast from spell books.

A lot of the differences can be summarized as “My model is spell prep, Kernel in Yellow’s model is spell casting.” With the second model, your design question is going to be “Why don’t casters always cast spells from spell books?” Your answer will probably be “because the results are usually bad,” and you’ll work to balance it against ordinary, “safe” casting. With the first model, my design question was “What happens when you try to prep a spell in a dungeon, instead of taking your time at your home base?” My answer wound up as “It will probably be a little unpredictable, but not much. Mostly, it’s just annoyingly long, so people rarely do that.”

You’ve got to decide which route you want to take: giving players a boost and then balancing that, or giving them something that adds to the rich background details.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Emergency Spell Casting

A recent conversation on Twitter got me thinking again about casting spells from spell books. Some people treat spell books as big, expensive magic scrolls, allowing casters to cast spells from them, but with the spell disappearing from the book when cast. I don’t treat them that way. I won’t go into all the details, because it’s something I’ve talked about many times.

But… I do like the idea of casting spells with spell books, an emergency spell-casting procedure that takes longer than a normal prepped spell to cast. Only spells the caster knows and could prep for casting can be cast this way. Here is my current thinking on rules for handling this.

Step I: Ingredients

If spell prep for spells in your campaign involves burning things, pouring libations, ritual sacrifices, or any other physical components, the caster needs to have these handy, or scavenge around for them. The easiest way to handle this, to me, would be to set a monetary value of ingredients needed and materials available. For example, spells might require 20 coins worth of common ingredients per spell level, and casters can spend a turn in any non-empty room to scavenge: roll 1d6, 5+ means 20 coins value has been found, otherwise add 1 to result for number of coins worth found. Inhabited rooms might double or triple the value found, magic labs will multiply by 10.

Step II: Casting Time

GM rolls casting time in secret: 1d6 x Spell Level, in turns. Players say how long they chant and perform rituals. If they don’t meet the necessary time, the spell is a miscast If they meet or exceed it, it is a success.

Step III: Spell Effect

GM makes a reaction roll: 2d6 on Spell Effect Table for a successful cast, but only 1d6 for a miscast. If the caster would not be able to prep the spell (in other words, doesn’t have an empty spell slot for the spell being cast,) shift the result up one line, making the spell effect one category worse. A blessed caster shifts the result down one line, making the spell effect one category better.

2d6 Roll	Effect	Detailed Explanation
0	Major Backfire	Random spell and random target.
1	Backfire	Random target, benefits are reversed.
2	Minor Backfire	Random target.
3-5	Fizzle	Half normal strength.
6-8	Weak	1 point weaker.
9-11	Normal	Standard spell effect.
12	Strong	1 point better.
13+	Fantastic	Double normal strength.

I’ve talked before about randomizing spell targets: everyone rolls a d6, and the GM rolls a d6 for the spell. Anyone whose roll matches the spell’s roll is affected. On this table, a major backfire randomizes the spell as well; easiest way to do this is to roll 2d6 and subtract 7 from the result, then count backwards or forwards on the list of spells to get the replacement.

A fizzled spell does half damage, lasts half as long, travels half as far, and is otherwise half strength in every way. A fantastic spell effect is the opposite, doubling strength in every way. A weak or strong spell decreases or increases damage, duration, distance, and so on by a tiny degree, but never as low as half the minimum or more than the 1.5 x maximum effect.

Notes on Time and Cost

Time above is given in turns, so that whether you use ten-minute turns, one-minute-turns, or something else, the rules will automatically scale to whatever you use… as long as normally a prepared spell requires one turn or less to cast. If you have adjusted either casting time or prep time so that it is not based on this assumption, you may have to throw in an extra multiplier to make sure emergency casting takes longer than standard spell casting or spell prep.

Costs are given in coins, which will be copper, silver, or gold, depending on whatever standard you are using for common equipment prices in your campaign. The assumption is that “material components” are used during spell prep, but not spell casting, and most spells have unnamed commonly available components.

If some spell levels have much higher ingredient costs, you can add a multiplier for different spell level ranges, for example:

• Spell Levels 1-3: Standard cost (20 coins per level)
• Spell Levels 4-6: High cost (100 coins per level)
• Spell Levels 7-9: Very High cost (500 coins per level)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Magic Item Charges and Reaction Rolls

This is an update to an idea in Wands Without Charges, eliminating the need to track charges in wands or other magic items. I’ve prettied things up in this nice little reaction table, which you roll the first time an item is used and on future uses.

2d6 Roll	Charge	When to Check Again
2	Drained	Last use. No further rolls.
3-5	Weak	Roll again before each use.
6-8	Normal	Roll again another day.
9-11	Strong	Roll again next week.
12	Full	Roll again next month.
13+	Endless	Never check normally.

Explanations

A weak or drained magic item glows feebly, sputters, or otherwise indicates it’s about fail. If drained, the item will work that one time, but won’t work again. If weak, it can be used at least once more, but from now on, a roll must be made every time the item is used, ignoring Normal or higher results.

A normal, strong, or full charge does not have a feeble glow, sputtering, or other low charge indication. Because there are plenty of charges left, there’s no need for a new roll if the item is used again on the same day, week, or month, as indicated by the result. Ignore results higher than previous rolls; items never increase in charge, only decrease.

Players can tell the difference between low-charge (weak or drained) and high-charge (normal, strong or full) by observation or by casting something like Detect Magic, which will reveal either a weak or strong magic aura. They can’t distinguish anything more detailed without using Contact Other Plane or similar spell.

After rolling for the item once, make a note of the item name with a d, w, or m in parentheses after the first roll to indicate whether to check daily, weekly, or monthly.

Curses and Blessings

If a cursed character uses a magic item, or any character uses it in a cursed area, a Drained result becomes a magical backfire. Beneficial effects (Wand of Healing) are reversed. Harmful effects affect random targets, possibly even the caster. The item is also drained as normal, unless it is a blessed (Endless) item.

If a magic item is used in a blessed area, the charge level doesn’t decrease as quickly. The first time a lower charge result is rolled, ignore it. If the item is used again in the area and a lower charge result is rolled on that attempt, the item depletes as normal.

The same applies to a blessed character except when an item is used for the very first time. In that case, add +1 to the 2d6 roll. This prevents a blessed character from draining an item on the first try and also allows the possible Endless result. A magic item with endless charges is basically an artifact and will never be drained under normal circumstances. Curses can force a reroll, and artifact items might have mysterious demands that must be met to continue uninterrupted use.

Wands

Magic wands typically have more charges than other charged items. When a wand is first used, a Normal result is treated as a Strong result (check again in a week.)

Optionally, if a spell-caster has a spell prepared that duplicates the wand’s effects, the Drained result is treated as Weak instead. Once that spell is used, however, the wand loses that benefit.

Cantrip Wands

Cantrip Wands cast very low level magical effects, but have weaker magic. Shift all results one category worse: Fully-Charged cantrip wands check every week, Strong cantrip wands check every day, Normal cantrip wands check each time they are used, and any Weak result means the wand is drained.

Magic Staff

A magic staff is more powerful than a wand. The first time a staff is used, shift the results one category better: Drained is treated as Weak, Weak is treated as Normal, and so on. A Fully-Charged result is still treated as “Roll again next month”, however, unless the player is blessed as noted above.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

The Magic of Fullmetal Alchemist

Not too long ago, I broke down and watched an anime. I don’t really enjoy anime, so I rarely watch it, even when (or especially when) people rant about how great a particular series or movie is.

So, I’d heard people talking about Fullmetal Alchemist for a long while, but hadn’t watched it. But I gave one of the series (Brotherhood) a shot and did enjoy it. Sure, it had a lot of the tropes and stylistic flourishes that makes me not like anime, but the series is good in spite of all that, and I like the basic story. Also watched the 2017 film on Netflix. It’s OK, but man, the things they cut out to get right into the action triggered some changes that I think don’t really work.

Anyways…

One of the things I partly like is the approach to magic – excuse me, “the science of alchemy”. They play fast and loose with the rules they lay down, but there are some rules there: the alchemist constructs a circle of transmutation for the desired effect, contacts the target material, and transmutes it into a new form (limited by the Law of Equivalent Exchange.) In terms ofmagic power sources, alchemy is primarily words of power with a little psychic power on the side: they use drawing symbols instead of speaking ritual phrases, and the “meditation” is brief, but it more or less follows that pattern.

State alchemists specialize in a single specific transmutation and wear gloves with the appropriate circle of transmutation already woven into the fabric, so they can perform their one trick over and over on command. They, like alchemists who don’t work for the military, have to do things the slow way if they aren’t doing their one schtick. There are a handful of characters who don’t fit this pattern, the most obvious being Edward and Alphonse, but they basically went through hell to get that ability… and let’s face it, they break the rules because it makes for faster paced, more exciting, over-the-top anime battles. We can basically ignore them.

I’d ask if anyone has made a translation of the Fullmetal Alchemy system into D&D rules, but (1) someone probably has, and (2) it’s probably an overly complicated mess. I might have more thoughts on this at a later date.

Spells to Detect or Sense Evil

Tim at Gothridge Manor has started going through the D&D spells one spell at a time and has made it to Detect Evil. Rob at Bat in the Attic has also commented on this. I’ve said some things about Detect Evil before, but I figured now is a good opportunity to comment on why I’m changing the spell in Liber Zero.

Tim likes the absence of subjectivity in the GURPS spell Sense Foes more than the vagueness of the B/X version. Rob points out that the original version in Men & Magic is in a way closer to the GURPS spell:

A spell to detect evil thought or intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object. Note that poison, for example, is neither good nor evil.

I interpret the original spell the same way: the spell detects a plan to do harm, either within a person in the caster’s presence or within an active spell or enchantment placed by someone planning harm. I link it to the ESP spell, which detects all thoughts, not just thoughts of harming the caster. Enchanted objects are an exception to the rule that poison, traps, and other mindless things or substances have no thoughts and thus cannot be detected as “evil”. Enchantments, the way I see them, contain part of the enchanter’s thoughts and desires, as opposed to a mundane bear trap or covered pit.

So, in the LZ Hybrid Class pamphlet, I listed the spell as Sense Evil, and was tempted to rename it completely to Sense Enemy. I haven’t written spell descriptions yet (working on a huge spell database as prep for that…) but it will be something like:

Sense Evil (Short Perception Spell)
Senses beings and enchantments that plan to harm the caster.

Note that this would not detect beings planning harm against someone other than the caster. This is what an ESP (or Sense Thoughts) spell would do.

    

About
Liber Zero
material

    

More
Magic Users
and Magic
Discussion

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

B/X Is Bad, Mmmkay? Part II

Continuing my rant about what I don’t like about B/X: I’m skipping over the post I promised as a follow-up about races, for now, and focusing instead on another element of B/X that I just can’t abide: the way magic-users gain and prep spells.

Unlike all the other versions pf D&D, a magic-user in B/X has exactly the same number of spells in their spell book as they are able to memorize and cast during an adventure. First level magic-users can memorize and cast one spell, so they only know one spell, and have exactly one spell in their spell books. Second level magic-users can memorize and cast two spells, so they add one spell to their spell books. And so on. The rules explicitly state that magic-users cannot copy spells from scrolls or from another magic-user’s spell books.

This may simplify the class, but it also limits an already heavily-limited class, especially at low levels. Furthermore, part of the motivation for adventuring, for magic-users in other versions of D&D, is to find more spells. Forbidding them from using spells found damps the interest.

But there’s something far worse about this design decision: it eliminates some of the challenge and strategy. A magic-user who knows eight spells but can only cast two during an adventure has to make decisions. Which spells are most likely to be needed? Should the party look for clues about what they are about to face, or just guess? Should they abort an adventure and return later if it looks like there was a better choice of spells? The only choice a B/X magic-user has is “use the spell now, or save it for later?”

Some of the B/X clones seem to agree with me. I notice Labyrinth Lord has characters begin with exactly one spell, but drops the restriction on adding spells to their spell books. So, players start with an extremely limited range of options, but expand to the same range as OD&D or AD&D as they play.

So, my complaint about how spells work in B/X is basically the same as my complaint about how races work. B/X stifles variety and restricts options too much.

Spell Keywords for One-Liner/Two-Liner Descriptions

For quite a long while now, I’ve been talking about creating a keyword system for spell descriptions, similar to the way I used keywords for monster descriptions. So, for example, I may have a monster listing that begins:

Tentacle Rat (Fantastic Aggressive Monstrous Vermin)

… And I’d like a spell listing like:

Enraged Finger (2nd Level Delusion Spell)

… or something like that.

I’ve also been working on a universal table of spell stats, but I’m constantly needing to tweak things, especially the ranged stat. But it just now occurred to me that I could use range keywords and stick those in the one-liner name, thus eliminating at least a few table look-ups.

Keywords I’m thinking of:

• Melee: 12 paces (30 feet)
• Short-Range: 24 paces (60 feet)
• Mid-Range: 48 paces (120 feet)
• Long-Range: 96 paces (240 feet)

And, if it really looks necessary, Touch could be a range, although I have some different ideas about handling that.

Similarly, Area would specify an area with the same width as Melee range, and Wide Area would be the same width as Short-Range (twice the width of Area.) If necessary, there could be a Terrain area keyword that matched the dimensions of Long-Range. Different range/area keywords would be accessible at different levels for different spell-casters, perhaps even for different spell-types, but this would help compress spell design tables, when I get around to those again.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Random Spell Targets

Since I’ve been using random targeting tricks lately, for example in yesterday’s ranged attacks post, I’ve been thinking about where else I can apply that trick. One possibility: spells.

Take Sleep. for example. There have been many variants of the Sleep spell, even just in official D&D versions. Sometimes it affects everyone in the area. Sometimes, only enemies. Sometimes, the caster can select which people are targeted. More than one person is affected, but how many are affected changes from version to version. I’m considering this approach:

Sleep (1st Level Mind Spell)
Up to 3d6 random living creatures within 4 paces of caster fall asleep. 2 dice creatures count as two targets, 3 dice creatures as 3 targets.

A standard option for all spells that would work like this would be that the caster can grab one or two creatures simultaneously, one per hand, to affect those specific targets. I’m thinking of applying this to spells that aren’t traditionally used that way.

Cure Light Wounds (1st Level Healing Spell)
Up to 1d6 random living creatures within 4 paces of the cleric recover 1 point of damage. If the cleric touches two targets, they are each healed 1d6/2 points. A single target is healed 1d6+1 points.

The only real reasons why I’d do this is to standardize spell casting a little and to give casters more options (touching targets becomes a way to control who is affected.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

More
Magic Users
and Magic
Discussion