121
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: June 21, 2015, 10:17:28 AM »
[Force] descriptor are special because of what they aren't: resisted by any DR or resistances
I know that's true. But can you refresh my memory as to where it is written?
As for the specific school mix of [Force] spells, that's not a problem at all (putting aside for the moment that nonmagical orbs of force make no sense). Descriptors can cross school lines because they're not attached to certain schools, that's the whole point. You can have [Fire] spells in Conjuration (to summon a fire elemental), Evocation (to set things on fire), Abjuration (to protect you from heat or cold), and Transmutation (to turn things into fire) without diluting or breaking the concept of either the schools or the descriptor.
I didn't say you can't spread the descriptors across the board, I said that the Force spells came up in the thread you linked as an 'anomaly' for appearing in more then one school, serving different purpose and being counterintuitive to the flavor of the usual spells in that school:
- Quote
For example, I think it would be much simpler if mage armor counted as an abjuration spell and an evocation spell, since it's energy out of nowhere and it protects you.
It's like explaining someone that they are seeing the color red wrong. V_V
And also, because the schools does not matter at all. Which brings us to:
Descriptors don't need to have rules text attached to the descriptor to have special attributes. Attack spells with the [Force] descriptor are special because of what they aren't: resisted by any DR or resistances, and few to no special anti-[Force] spells or monsters exist. Likewise, [Mind-Affecting] doesn't have anything attached to it except "only works on creatures with Int scores", but the complex interplay of it being a common creature type immunity plus the fact that [Mind-Affecting] spells tend to be character-changing or character-destroying and so gaining immunity to it is a priority makes [Mind-Affecting] spells something that you don't want to rely on too much.
The thing is, the schools are a flavor mapping first and foremost. Having spells classified in-universe as "attack spells" or "debuff spells" or whatever isn't nearly as useful because when deciding what to focus their characters on, most people care about things like "I wanna be a shapeshifter" or "I wanna be a fire mage" or even just "I wanna be like Gandalf." People don't want to choose to focus on attack/defense/buff/debuff/etc. spells, because this is D&D, everyone needs combat and noncombat spells and those who focus on just one or the other (like the warmage) don't measure up.
Well-defined mechanical implementations should go to keywords and descriptors, leaving schools to be flavor-based.
To me it seems as if you're mixing between must have and should have. I think there's a very basic problem with the way you present your argument.
First off, I'm not the player. I'm not going to decide for her/him what he wants to play. I will provide and he will choose. In all the existing editions there are things that can or cannot be created by RAW, arcane spellcasting or different.
Second, the thinking of classifying spells as "attack" or "buff" are only for designing sake. They are not to be presented as such and are not grouped into schools of "offense" "defense" and the like. And yet, when you go on Optimization boards you encounter these very definitions - SoS, SoD, dmg, buff, HOT, heal, save, and so on.
Lastly, I don't agree with you that the warmage doesn't provide the goods. If the GM isn't bringing monsters with special abilities or defenses then the warmage is a great source of attack power.
...Look at Magic: the game is one of the most tightly-defined games out there, mechanically, with dozens of evergreen keywords, a stack-based order of precedence, specific game meanings to "may" and "choose" and "attack," and so forth Its five colors, however, don't mean anything in and of themselves, and Black gets regenerate and delve instead of Blue's bounce and counters or White's token generation and banding purely because of the flavor attached to those abilities rather than any specific rules delineating what Black means and then slapping flavor on that later.
I much rather compare the colors to classes. Each have it's own unique feels and can power different range of 'abilities'. But it's up to you to use them.
Also, the example just proves that you have to have well defined rules.
Transmutation isn't about buffs, it just has a lot of them because changing your form to be better at grappling/swimming/etc. is a common mythological theme, and offensive Transmutations like flesh to stone and disintegrate are just as iconic. Evocation isn't about instantaneous spells, it just has a lot of them because evoking things like fire and lightning that don't stick around for a while is a common mythological theme, and longer-lasting Evocations like flaming sphere and daylight are just as iconic. And so on.
Like I said above, modular mechanics belong in descriptors, not schools. Partly because having smaller more defined chunks is more elegant and easier to write, so for instance having generic rules for [Teleportation] spells, which all just bring something from point A to point B and optionally the reverse, requires a lot fewer exceptions and special cases than having generic rules for Conjuration, which can teleport, summon, call, or create things. Partly because the whole benefit of modular mechanics is in combining them, so when making a spell that, say, summons a demon in a terrifying burst of fire and brimstone, you can make it a "(Summoning) [Chaotic][Fire][Fear][Evil]" spell and offload most of the common mechanics to those; making it a "Conjuration and Enchanement and Evocation" spell can't do most of the mechanical heavy lifting because again the schools are too broad to have lots of mechanics attached and having a three-school spell defeats the whole purpose of having schools.
Which brings us to the same point, that spell schools are meaningless.
Well, this was pretty much what I was referring to. There are a sizable number of spells that are in the "wrong" school. If we're not paying attention to the spells that are traditionally in each school, and the dividing lines they've picked for those schools, then the "school system" is pretty vacuous. It's just some dividing lines for spells at some very general level. It's hard to have too strong an opinion against that.
Agreed.
What would happen if we remove the schools altogether?
There are two other more general issues with the D&D schools as they are set up, which are kind of what has led me to mostly ignore them in recent years. Well, that and I've noticed that nobody who hasn't played a lot of old school D&D doesn't tend to put much weight on them. First, is that they have a kind of scientific aura to them. They imply a fairly rigorous college of magic feel to them. That works in some settings, doesn't in others. It implies that Wizards all have a pretty scientific typography for magic, as a whole, which does tell you a bit about your game world.
I didn't understand that. Could you explain again?
And, maybe if that's the case a custom thematic spell list along the lines of the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage might be a more fruitful thing to do. That also might smooth out the fact that all schools are not, as they stand now, created equal.
I really don't like the custom spell list. It means that new spells, usually, don't enter retroactively to your list. And, that you as the player has less of freedom for pick and mix your class. It is the easiest way to handle it, I'll give it that.