D&D Magic Theory

[PhoenixPhyre]

So you would really really hate systems like Ars Magica ?

Not hate, just not find useful or all that fun beyond a one-shot. Even with D&D I prefer to be the DM.

To PhoenixPhyre: Read my post closely and you will notice something: I said all of that. Except for the bit where it can't work and other way I really don't think that is true. But I understand why you went with it. Given the set of trade-offs, I think you have done a really good job. When I said that adding the caster mechanics was just a matter of work, I meant that this would be a good base to start off of. The explanations for magic are consistent and complete enough (and true completeness is unreasonable). So good job. If I find myself running a D&D campaign again I might even use it.

But in the end that doesn't fix deeper issues with the system. Which I believe I have gone on enough about.

I don't see the deeper problems, but that's a YMMV situation, so we can agree to disagree.

Spoiler: Fleshing out the types of magic

Show

Going back to fleshing out the individual casters, here are my basic thoughts, specific to my setting. The general ideas, I think, works more broadly but the specifics are setting-specific. I'll put things like that in green text.

Spells, as energy-manipulating, harmonic-causing mental patterns, have certain key elements. Exactly which elements are key differs from spell to spell, but without these key elements the spell cannot take form. These are codified for game purposes as the components of the spell (VSM) I believe that individuals use different specific components in many cases, with verbal being the most variable and material being the least. Lots of different casters use obfuscation (or don't really know the actual key components), so a spell that requires a single key word might actually use a short chant in practice.

There are, IMO, 4 basic types of spell-casting out there, which I will give descriptive names.

The Harmonies are what are most commonly associated with Bards. They use rhythm, music, and movement to create their patterns. They're the most variable of the casters, gathering their information from what they see, hear, and feel. They're intuitive, rather than studied. They do it because it feels right, not because that's what some theory says. As a result of this, the easiest things for them to affect are minds (because they do a lot of the work "for free").

The Harmonies are the oldest type of magic, dating back before anything else. Most tribal shamans and oral historians use primitive forms of the Harmonies. There are Temple Dancers who use very similar arts. Different practitioners are very varied in how they present their magic.

The Arcane Arts (usually called wizardry) are used by sorcerers, wizards, and warlocks. They rely on careful, precise manipulation of patterns of words, motions, and the energy of material components to evoke their effects. They're also the most codified of the arts. Every wizard, however, has to figure out what the actual keys are for themselves and "rephrase" the spell into their own internal system. Sorcerers come with the patterns/knowledge built in, but must unlock them through practice and growth. Warlocks learn them from a patron, having them "burned in" to their brains, so to speak. Since they're limited by mortal understanding, they're not so good at gracefully repairing living things. They can puppet them by seizing control of the inputs, but they can't build them or repair them very well at all (no healing unless granted by a Patron).

There are different schools, and they differ greatly in how they teach and build spells. A Council-trained wizard might describe things in precise, almost geometric notation. A Dynastic hobgoblin wizard might be quick and dirty, focusing on the bare minimum. A Stone Throne wizard may use lots of writhing, wriggly motions and sibilant words, as they revere snakes in that area. Same effects, different colorations.

Spirit-talking is the nature magic of druids and rangers. This is accomplished by making deals with the omnipresent nature spirits--the spirits of rocks, trees, bushes, etc. These deals are basically quid pro quo--the caster feeds them energy, in exchange for the spirit channeling the spell through the caster. This requires being in tune with the spirits, and spirits are most at home with manipulating nature itself.

A bunch of shamans and others use these arts in addition to druids and rangers. Byssia specializes in spirit-talking, replacing almost all clerics. To someone watching, a druid casting a spell may speak with a different voice, possibly as an overlay on his regular voice. Circles may systematize things a bit, but beyond that each druid is an individual.

Divine Empowerment is used by clerics. This, like Spirit-talking, involves an outside entity granting the spell-pattern temporarily to the caster. It's less direct, in that they receive the patterns as revelation during meditation rather than in-the-moment. The divine entity can act through the caster directly, but that's less common and more ad hoc. Because the spells are not bounded by mortal understanding, they're good at healing and aiding allies or affecting life itself. Because of the indirection, most are worse (than the Arcane Arts) at directly manipulating the elements.

Different clerics end up casting very differently (outside the key elements). A Temple-trained cleric and a lares priest won't use the same prayers. They'll contain similar elements, but it would require someone trained in both to see the exact similarities. Clerics are the most likely to cloak things in mysticism or obfuscation and among the least analytical in their approach.

Paladins are a special case. They don't fit neatly into any of the four major categories. One theory is that they're somehow granted similar access to a cleric, except without divine intermediary. Belief has power, and they believe in their Oath more than anything. That does sharply limit the effects they can produce to those that their unconscious mind considers "apt" for their Oath.