Magic, for magic classes only or for everyone?

[motorizer]

Why does magic need to have "mystique," though? Why does it need to be special?

 

 

Because if it wasn't, no one would call it magic, if one person can fly, it's magic, if everyone can fly, it's just flying....

[Ffordesoon]

@motorizer:

 

But as I said, that's a problem with execution, not the idea. if everyone (or most people; enough that it's commonplace) can do a bit of magic, but only five people can do crazy magic like flying, surely flying would still inspire wonder?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Most of the magic-flavored things that fighters, rogues, et al. can purchase will wind up being optional Talents instead of core class Abilities.  If you want to play such a character with entirely non-magical abilities, you will be able to do so, but there will be some supernatural options for players who want them.

 

I believe that right now all of the core class Abilities that fighters and rogues (specifically) have are described as being more-or-less mundane/non-magical.

[Gumbercules]

Most of the magic-flavored things that fighters, rogues, et al. can purchase will wind up being optional Talents instead of core class Abilities.  If you want to play such a character with entirely non-magical abilities, you will be able to do so, but there will be some supernatural options for players who want them.

 

I believe that right now all of the core class Abilities that fighters and rogues (specifically) have are described as being more-or-less mundane/non-magical.

 

Can't rogues turn invisible? I thought it was great how instead of tip-toeing around it and pretending that they're just really good at sneaking but you have to abstract it as invisibility due to practical limitations like most RPGs, you just came out and said, "Yeah, they can use magic to turn invisible."

 

Does this mean you're backing away from the "everybody gets soul magic!" concept? I thought it made it much easier to justify parity between what are traditionally magical and non-magical classes. Otherwise, you have to either do a lot of *wink, wink*, like with rogue stealth, or risk making some classes weaker and blander than others.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Everyone has access to soul magic (if not through Abilities, then through Talents), but not every character type has to build characters that use it.  There's a Talent that allows short-term "real" Invisibility, but it's not an inherent part of the rogue class.

 

On a side note, stealth as a general mechanic is in no way exclusive to rogues.  Rangers, rogues, monks, and chanters all start with the same class bonus to the stealth skill and other classes can trail very closely from level-to-level.

[Lephys]

Everyone has access to soul magic (if not through Abilities, then through Talents), but not every character type has to build characters that use it.  There's a Talent that allows short-term "real" Invisibility, but it's not an inherent part of the rogue class.

Not to get greedy with your much appreciated time here, but, might I ask if there's an example of a class-based (even if optional) traditionally-non-magic class (Warrior/Rogue) ability that constitutes magic? Like a Warrior causing a sword to melt through something, or generating a wave of force with a sword swing (even without the sword making contact) that knocks foes down, etc.?

Edited June 5, 2013 by Lephys

[Gumbercules]

Ok, that sounds good. Once you have the particulars of the system nailed down, a more in-depth look at the differences between Talents and Abilities would make for a great update.

[Iron_JG]

@ Lephys

 

You have a point. I've kinda taken it for granted with party-based cRPGs that I end up spending more time micromanaging casters, whether I like it or not. Thinking back over fights a little more, though, I've realized I spent a lot of time managing every party member, if not for abilities, then just for repositioning or assigning new targets. So I suppose durability shouldn't be a determinant for how much management a party member needs, and, yeah, every party member should offer worthwhile, active involvement over the course of encounters. Of course, some party members will get more focus in certain fights than others, but it should average out to everyone being worth direct player interaction.

 

Part of the problem, I think, was that in many games, spells are so important to budget/time properly that I don't trust AI for casters like I do melee units. I guess what I was getting at was, if the game's going to force me to spend most of time with casters anyway, make sure melee units are more self-sufficient. But that's making a concession to bad AI/tactics settings, rather than asking they're, like, not bad.

[yaminsoul]

Short answer for me to the original question:

 

"Should a fighter be able to cast fireball?" No.

 

"Should they be able to use magic?" Yes*

 

*But it depends what you mean by magic.

 

Long Answer

 

As people have tended to use D and D 3.5 in this conversation, I guess I will start there. As many, many people have noted who played the table top version of D and D 3.0-3.5, one of the biggest "flaws" in the game design was how quickly spellcasters of virtually any type became "better" than non-spell caster of any type. This was actually well quantified in the "tier system"

 

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=bc18425e5fa73d30e4a9a54889edf44e&topic=1002.0

 

which basically gestures to the idea that GM's and players have to understand that certain classes will just always have more and usually better options then others.

 

Thus a well planned wizards, even from very low level, will just generally be more effective than the equivalent level fighter, and it only gets worse as they go up in levels. Or to put it another way the OOTS druid says to the rogue (With almost complete justification)

 

I have class features that are stronger than your class,

 

Now, that is not say you could not build an effective fighter, who could do lots of damage. You certainly could. But the problem was you were still just hitting things with a stick, just really well. The wizard could summon angels and demons, warp time, enclose you in an impossible to escape magic box, fly above you and laugh, and 40 others things that basically renders your abilities moot or ineffective, and that's just in the core book.

 

 Even worse in some ways, spells could be used in non-combat situations to completely end run problems or even entire quests. The bad guy hiding in his lair? I scry on him, go invisible, summon 50 creatures, drop them all him and laugh. There are a terrible journey from x to y filled with sand monster. I teleport us all, (or airwalk or any number of other movement spells).  I need to convince the king not to go war. Charm person..,.And thats not evening talking about the ability of the wizards to literally know about any threat coming to them in the next week and perfectly prepare (yeah, go contact other plane)

 

Magic just gave you so many options and so much versatile power that at some point a wizard could literally do any job, often better than the non-spell casting person who specialized in it, and this also applied to many other spell casting casts. It got the point where in some games the Rogues best ability was the one that let them use magic devices....

 

Now, in the Video Games loosely based on 3.0 -3.5 rule sets they got around this problem somewhat by simply eliminating and/or weakening certain spells, by throwing constant fights at you, by giving abundant magic items, and several other work around.  A main example is that there is no fly spells, so the wizards can't just fly about 200 feet and laugh at the melee fighter. There is no contingency spell so you can't just dimension door when hit, and ect ect. and I say kina because even with the nerfs, one and one is the fighter really going to beat the guy who can summon nasty creatures or perfectly hold monster them?

 

Anyho....In 4.0, Wizards of the Coast (the guys who make Dungeons and Dragons) spent most of their design energy it seems to correct this in two ways:

 

1) Giving every class access to magic, though they called it something else: martial powers, arcane powers, divine powers, primal powers, ect, so that everyone got access to small cool abilities that all functioned in pretty much the same model (once per day, once per combat, as many times you want) but just had different effects, such as defending, doing damage, moving people, healing, ect.

2) SEVERLY limiting what these powers could do, even at the high levels, both on and especially off the battle field. There is not more charming people (or not really), knowing everything in advanced, easily teleport. They kinda gave some of this back in things they called "rituals" which only certain classes usually have access to, but they are much weaker.

 

Now, there is a great deal of debate about whether this was a good or bad idea, but it certainly is more "balanced."

 

In Project Eternity, I think how important access to magic will be really depends on how powerful magic is or can be in the first place. IF 'magic' lets a character class completely dominate many different type of encounters, than yes I think everyone needs access to magic, others certain character choices or even NPC companions might dominate the game. But if magic is much more limited and/or restricted only to certain paths, than no its not monitory at all that everyone gets access.

 

That being said I still highly enjoyed Icewind Dale II, Balder's Gate 1 and II, and NWN 1 and 2, all of which were based on the "flawed 3.0-3.5" system. So I think its still quite possible to make an awesome game with completely "balancing" the classes. But I think doing so in some way would help quite a bit.

 

At least that is my view.

Short answer for me to the original question:

 

"Should a fighter be able to cast fireball?" No.

 

"Should they be able to use magic?" Yes*

 

*But it depends what you mean by magic.

 

Long Answer

 

As people have tended to use D and D 3.5 in this conversation, I guess I will start there. As many, many people have noted who played the table top version of D and D 3.0-3.5, one of the biggest "flaws" in the game design was how quickly spellcasters of virtually any type became "better" than non-spell caster of any type. This was actually well quantified in the "tier system"

 

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=bc18425e5fa73d30e4a9a54889edf44e&topic=1002.0

 

which basically gestures to the idea that GM's and players have to understand that certain classes will just always have more and usually better options then others.

 

Thus a well planned wizards, even from very low level, will just generally be more effective than the equivalent level fighter, and it only gets worse as they go up in levels. Or to put it another way the OOTS druid says to the rogue (With almost complete justification)

 

I have class features that are stronger than your class,

 

Now, that is not say you could not build an effective fighter, who could do lots of damage. You certainly could. But the problem was you were still just hitting things with a stick, just really well. The wizard could summon angels and demons, warp time, enclose you in an impossible to escape magic box, fly above you and laugh, and 40 others things that basically renders your abilities moot or ineffective, and that's just in the core book.

 

 Even worse in some ways, spells could be used in non-combat situations to completely end run problems or even entire quests. The bad guy hiding in his lair? I scry on him, go invisible, summon 50 creatures, drop them all him and laugh. There are a terrible journey from x to y filled with sand monster. I teleport us all, (or airwalk or any number of other movement spells).  I need to convince the king not to go war. Charm person..,.And thats not evening talking about the ability of the wizards to literally know about any threat coming to them in the next week and perfectly prepare (yeah, go contact other plane)

 

Magic just gave you so many options and so much versatile power that at some point a wizard could literally do any job, often better than the non-spell casting person who specialized in it, and this also applied to many other spell casting casts. It got the point where in some games the Rogues best ability was the one that let them use magic devices....

 

Now, in the Video Games loosely based on 3.0 -3.5 rule sets they got around this problem somewhat by simply eliminating and/or weakening certain spells, by throwing constant fights at you, by giving abundant magic items, and several other work around.  A main example is that there is no fly spells, so the wizards can't just fly about 200 feet and laugh at the melee fighter. There is no contingency spell so you can't just dimension door when hit, and ect ect. and I say kina because even with the nerfs, one and one is the fighter really going to beat the guy who can summon nasty creatures or perfectly hold monster them?

 

Anyho....In 4.0, Wizards of the Coast (the guys who make Dungeons and Dragons) spent most of their design energy it seems to correct this in two ways:

 

1) Giving every class access to magic, though they called it something else: martial powers, arcane powers, divine powers, primal powers, ect, so that everyone got access to small cool abilities that all functioned in pretty much the same model (once per day, once per combat, as many times you want) but just had different effects, such as defending, doing damage, moving people, healing, ect.

2) SEVERLY limiting what these powers could do, even at the high levels, both on and especially off the battle field. There is not more charming people (or not really), knowing everything in advanced, easily teleport. They kinda gave some of this back in things they called "rituals" which only certain classes usually have access to, but they are much weaker.

 

Now, there is a great deal of debate about whether this was a good or bad idea, but it certainly is more "balanced."

 

In Project Eternity, I think how important access to magic will be really depends on how powerful magic is or can be in the first place. IF 'magic' lets a character class completely dominate many different type of encounters, than yes I think everyone needs access to magic, others certain character choices or even NPC companions might dominate the game. But if magic is much more limited and/or restricted only to certain paths, than no its not monitory at all that everyone gets access.

 

That being said I still highly enjoyed Icewind Dale II, Balder's Gate 1 and II, and NWN 1 and 2, all of which were based on the "flawed 3.0-3.5" system. So I think its still quite possible to make an awesome game with completely "balancing" the classes. But I think doing so in some way would help quite a bit.

 

At least that is my view.

[TrashMan]

@motorizer:

 

But as I said, that's a problem with execution, not the idea. if everyone (or most people; enough that it's commonplace) can do a bit of magic, but only five people can do crazy magic like flying, surely flying would still inspire wonder?

 

It would, but it would still inspire LESS wonder than if no one could do it.

 

Either way, magic (for me) should be "magical". Otherwise it isn't really magic.

The frequency and itensity can shape a different atmosphere of course, but I personally feel that overly high-magic worlds loose something.

[motorizer]

 

@motorizer:

 

But as I said, that's a problem with execution, not the idea. if everyone (or most people; enough that it's commonplace) can do a bit of magic, but only five people can do crazy magic like flying, surely flying would still inspire wonder?

 

It would, but it would still inspire LESS wonder than if no one could do it.

 

Either way, magic (for me) should be "magical". Otherwise it isn't really magic.

The frequency and itensity can shape a different atmosphere of course, but I personally feel that overly high-magic worlds loose something.

 

 Me too,

 there is no way that anyone in game should ever call something that every one can do, magic...that just ignores the definition of the word

 

Also, one of the main reasons I dislike magic in RPGs is the lack of imagination or innovation...it seems like we have been casting the same reskinned laser beam spells for 25 years now and it just feels stale and uninspired.

 

If I was designing a fantasy RPG I would most likely still include magic and magicians, but I'm fairly sure I'd slap an outright ban on any energy bolt/fireball/lighting bolt/shoot lasers from your fingers spells...people complain that the same old fantasy races keep cropping up, but the magic is much worse.

 

I'd like to see spells that use the environment and what is there rather than creating energy out of nothing...and I'd rather attack spells be stuff like opening up the ground and swallowing enemies or turning the plant life against them...or creating a golem from the soil/ice/sand/whatever is there..or spells that twist an enemies flesh and turn them into a deformed slug thing...

 

anything but another bloody fireball

 

rant over.

Edited June 6, 2013 by motorizer

[Ffordesoon]

 

 

@motorizer:

 

But as I said, that's a problem with execution, not the idea. if everyone (or most people; enough that it's commonplace) can do a bit of magic, but only five people can do crazy magic like flying, surely flying would still inspire wonder?

It would, but it would still inspire LESS wonder than if no one could do it.

 

Either way, magic (for me) should be "magical". Otherwise it isn't really magic.

The frequency and itensity can shape a different atmosphere of course, but I personally feel that overly high-magic worlds loose something.

Well, that's your preference, and you're entitled to have one.

 

For me personally, I kind of don't care. I mean, I do, but only if the implementation of magic in a given setting is wrong for the atmosphere the author (or whatever you call them) wants to create. I wouldn't want Lord Of The Rings to play out in exactly the same way if every mook could shoot lightning out of his fingertips, because giving everyone that ability and having them never use it would break the story. By contrast, I wouldn't want a version of Harry Potter where only Dumbledore and Voldemort could do spells, for the same reason. But I don't prefer a specific presentation of magic in and of itself. The way I look at it is, if you can sell me on it, I'm yours.

[AGX-17]

Why does magic need to have "mystique," though? Why does it need to be special?

 

Note that I'm not arguing against either of those portrayals of magic, but rather the idea that those are the only "valid" ways to portray magic. That's certainly the easiest way to make it interesting, but it feels kind of arbitrary to say that's the only way. And does it even need to be "interesting" from a lore perspective?

 

I understand that the classic high fantasy wizard is a wizened old fellow who has spent his life studying the proper applications of "the magicks," and there's no inherent problem with that archetype. Wizards in D&D match it to a tee, and I absolutely get the argument for carrying that aspect of D&D over into PE. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be carried over. I'm speaking about fantasy games in general right now, not necessarily PE.

 

With that said (and you should take it as read from this point on), I think a world in which magic is commonplace and acknowledged as such could easily be just as interesting as a world in which it's rare, and that the "magical" feeling its rarity gives you could be replicated in other ways.

 

Look at, say, kung fu movies. Everyone in a kung fu movie is usually able to do some small amount of kung fu, but kung fu masters are as rare as wizards, and their superhuman displays of skill are appropriately astonishing. The mooks who can do some basic punches and kicks are so ubiquitous, and so easily trounced by the hero (who is often a journeyman of local renown, not a true master), that we are instinctively unimpressed by them even if they do stuff that would be impressive in another type of story. And we are likewise only somewhat impressed by the journeyman hero's kung fu when he or she goes up against a master.

 

(Yeah, I know, CTHD isn't technically a kung fu picture, and Li Mu Bai isn't technically a master, but it serves well enough as an example.)

 

Now apply that to a fantasy universe. Pretty much everyone can do a cantrip or two, and there are some moderately accomplished spellslingers, but the best of the best are on a whole other level, and inspire the awe reserved for any caster in a fantasy world with "rare" magic. Ergo, some people are special, some people aren't. Same as usual.

 

There is, of course, the argument that magic as a whole would become less "special" in such a universe, and I agree with that argument. I also don't think it's particularly important for magic as an abstract concept to be special unless that's the world-sense a storyteller is trying to evoke. The important thing is not to get into A Wizard Did It territory, where magic can simply fix everything. But when that stuff happens, it's a flaw in the world-building of a specific storyteller rather than an inherent flaw of magic as a concept.

 

So there is no confusion, I will reiterate that I'm not saying commonplace magic must be the order of things in PE's world. My point is simply that there is no inherent problem with commonplace magic unless you just hate it when magic isn't "special." Which, you know, I get, because I too have pet peeves, but any pet peeves you have are kind of your problem. I loathe Will Smith to an irrational degree, but I can still admit he's talented, and I can watch and enjoy his movies. And even if I couldn't, I wouldn't say a movie is garbage just because Will Smith is in it. I just wouldn't watch the thing.

If everyone can use "magic" in the traditional fantasy/gaming sense, well... Then we're back to TES. All you have to do is buy a self-destructing book to learn a spell and you can cast it. There are lore-based racial variables, like black peo... err... Redguards aren't good at magic because they're more suited to manual labor and physical fighting (official lore, not my subjective interpretation,) but the fundamental concept is that anyone can use it.

 

Soul "magic" strikes me as something more akin to the concept of "chi" in some oriental cultures, like a natural internal energy which can be manipulated or projected at will, with training or talent. These cultures differentiate between those concepts and "magic," which is still specific rituals performed to call on an outside power, be it a natural energy, a spirit or god's power or what-have-you. e.g. When talking about fantastic Gōngfu (Gōng meaning "work" or "achievement" and fu meaning "man," in other words, Gōngfu means a man's work/effort in a literal sense, but more generally can be interpreted as effort, dedication and hard work, originally referring to the training and effort put into learning a martial art,) movies, you're referring to the aforementioned concept of "chi," not to "magic." In contrast, something like Feng Shui is "magic," a system of geomancy rituals meant to call on outside natural or divine forces to bring power, fortune, etc. to oneself.

Edited June 6, 2013 by AGX-17

[Ffordesoon]

So it's chi, then. What's the problem with treating it like that?

 

Some people cook, other people specialize in cooking to such a great degree that we call them chefs. One doesn't invalidate the other.

 

And yes, I know it's technically Gōngfu, but the films are most commonly referred to as "kung fu movies" in English. That's why I used the term I did.

[Lephys]

Now, that is not say you could not build an effective fighter, who could do lots of damage. You certainly could. But the problem was you were still just hitting things with a stick, just really well. The wizard could summon angels and demons, warp time, enclose you in an impossible to escape magic box, fly above you and laugh, and 40 others things that basically renders your abilities moot or ineffective, and that's just in the core book.

Well, see... now we're just talking efficiency, really. I would ask, why, in the same amount of time that it takes a skilled Warrior to individually fell several opponents by "hitting things with a stick," should a Wizard be able to root them all in place, throw a fireball at them, teleport across the battlefield, throw 3 more people off a cliff, then put shields on everybody, then summon a dragon?

 

Why is performing a task with magic inherently less requiring of time/effort/focus than performing a task physically with a tool? Think about it... if you're going to unlock a lock with magic, instead of a lockpick, wouldn't you STILL need to know the mechanics of the lock? What if it just LOOKS like it's a lock on a door, and, on the inside, it's actually just solid metal with a fake keyhole in the outside? You just go "Oh, a lock! Stand back... I've got this!" And you cast a spell that... what... operates the lock mechanism from a distance? The lock mechanism that doesn't exist?

 

So, yeah, I would think that tracking a foe with my eyes and aiming a spell and focusing magical energy (however it is I focus magical energy) would require just as much focus and such as aiming a bow, or going through sword forms. Imagine trying to write a complex program on a computer in the midst of battle to reprogram some robot that can POTENTIALLY attack people, but doesn't have the programming to do so. Why would that be instantaneous and easy, while a guy running around holding the enemies off with a stick would be super difficult and time-consuming?

 

I think magic is like that robot. It has the potential to do things, but the caster actually makes it do them.

 

To make a simple comparison between Wizard and Warrior: The Warrior can take on 3 enemies at once, with his awesome melee combat prowess, but he's not near them yet when he spots them. So, he must make his way to them, THEN put his awesome prowess to work to dispatch them. Meanwhile, the Wizard could go ahead and start prepping a fireball, and toss that at them without having to get closer, striking all three and taking them out (as well as producing fire rather than simply physically trauma-ing them to death). But, one would think that level of effort in shaping magical energy into enough of a controlled fireblast to take out 3 enemies, and aiming it, etc, would leave him just as mentally tired as the Warrior is physically tired from swinging his stick about. Also, you change factors, and we get more differences. OH NO, AN AMBUSH! Stuff leaps from the shrubbery around you! Well, Mr. Wizard, your fireball isn't gonna do you too much good if you hurl it right here in the middle of your group. Meanwhile, Mr. Warrior gets to IMMEDIATELY go to town on people, while you're standing around trying to avoid death and resorting to lesser, individual-target spells so as not to melt your own party.

 

And, actually, in light of this analysis, I dare say I'd be interested in the possibility of instant-cast abilities/spells that leave you with down-time AFTER their use. Almost like taking cast time and putting it AFTER a spell, instead of before. Not that you couldn't still have cast times... But, anywho, I don't see why efficiency isn't a factor that can reasonably balance out things between a hit-things-with-sticks Warrior and an annihilate-small-villages-in-one-fell-swoop Wizard.

 

Instead of seeing a Wizard just get to produce exponentially more and more powerful effects as he progresses, why couldn't he progress more like a Warrior? You know, gain speed, endurance, utility, etc. with his spells.

 

Even MORE simply, I'd ask: Why does the ability to strike 10 things at once even need to be strong enough to KILL those 10 things at once? Doesn't it make sense that the more pieces of toast you put butter on, the less butter each piece of toast gets, out of the same stick of butter? Why do you suddenly get 5 sticks of butter instead of 1 just because there are 10 pieces of toast instead of 1 piece of toast?

 

People seem to have this idea about magic that the people using it aren't living and breathing in a world of physics, and working within the limitations of the human mind and senses, and that the effects of magic aren't at all subject to the physics of the world, etc. If that's the case, then I don't see why Warriors can't move infinitely fast and just kill 10 enemies in the same amount of time it takes a Wizard to summon a Flame Maelstrom to kill those same 10.

[mcmanusaur]

Soul "magic" strikes me as something more akin to the concept of "chi" in some oriental cultures, like a natural internal energy which can be manipulated or projected at will, with training or talent. These cultures differentiate between those concepts and "magic," which is still specific rituals performed to call on an outside power, be it a natural energy, a spirit or god's power or what-have-you. e.g. When talking about fantastic Gōngfu (Gōng meaning "work" or "achievement" and fu meaning "man," in other words, Gōngfu means a man's work/effort in a literal sense, but more generally can be interpreted as effort, dedication and hard work, originally referring to the training and effort put into learning a martial art,) movies, you're referring to the aforementioned concept of "chi," not to "magic." In contrast, something like Feng Shui is "magic," a system of geomancy rituals meant to call on outside natural or divine forces to bring power, fortune, etc. to oneself.

 

 

Actually, I'm getting the sneaking impression that the mechanics soul magic will be more akin to dragon shouts in Skyrim (not the vocal aspect, since that would overlap with Chanters, but otherwise), but I hope I'm wrong there.

Edited June 8, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Iucounu]

Just cut out all those crappy lamer classes that are fighting with a stick and go for magic all the way!

 

No seriously, I think I like this approach

Everyone has access to soul magic (if not through Abilities, then through Talents), but not every character type has to build characters that use it.  There's a Talent that allows short-term "real" Invisibility, but it's not an inherent part of the rogue class.

It ensures that magical spells remain largely a mage thing, but some non-magic character builds with highly specialised and unique abilities  can develop magical abilities due to their soulpower, which enriches the range of possible builds. So doesn't break too much with "lotr tradition" in this genre, that you need to have pure figher classes. Although who is to say that you can't make a good game otherwise

Edited June 9, 2013 by Iucounu

[FlintlockJazz]

Everyone has access to soul magic (if not through Abilities, then through Talents), but not every character type has to build characters that use it. There's a Talent that allows short-term "real" Invisibility, but it's not an inherent part of the rogue class.

 

On a side note, stealth as a general mechanic is in no way exclusive to rogues. Rangers, rogues, monks, and chanters all start with the same class bonus to the stealth skill and other classes can trail very closely from level-to-level.

Ooo I like the sound of that. Could potentially form a group of medieval 'spec ops' stealth bunnies in that case. :D

[FlintlockJazz]

Actually do we know there is a fireball spell definitely in PE? Maybe wizards in PE don't get ranged spells and can't act like artillery like in D&D? Instead they have to melee with their spells? Might even be they are designed to take tons of damage and be the tanks while the fighters are the damage dealers? Maybe wizards can only buff? Maybe they only get pimping spells and manage the party's 'relaxation' time?

[eschaton]

Why does magic need to have "mystique," though? Why does it need to be special?

 

Note that I'm not arguing against either of those portrayals of magic, but rather the idea that those are the only "valid" ways to portray magic. That's certainly the easiest way to make it interesting, but it feels kind of arbitrary to say that's the only way. And does it even need to be "interesting" from a lore perspective?

 

I understand that the classic high fantasy wizard is a wizened old fellow who has spent his life studying the proper applications of "the magicks," and there's no inherent problem with that archetype. Wizards in D&D match it to a tee, and I absolutely get the argument for carrying that aspect of D&D over into PE. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be carried over. I'm speaking about fantasy games in general right now, not necessarily PE.

 

With that said (and you should take it as read from this point on), I think a world in which magic is commonplace and acknowledged as such could easily be just as interesting as a world in which it's rare, and that the "magical" feeling its rarity gives you could be replicated in other ways.

 

Look at, say, kung fu movies. Everyone in a kung fu movie is usually able to do some small amount of kung fu, but kung fu masters are as rare as wizards, and their superhuman displays of skill are appropriately astonishing. The mooks who can do some basic punches and kicks are so ubiquitous, and so easily trounced by the hero (who is often a journeyman of local renown, not a true master), that we are instinctively unimpressed by them even if they do stuff that would be impressive in another type of story. And we are likewise only somewhat impressed by the journeyman hero's kung fu when he or she goes up against a master.

 

(Yeah, I know, CTHD isn't technically a kung fu picture, and Li Mu Bai isn't technically a master, but it serves well enough as an example.)

 

Now apply that to a fantasy universe. Pretty much everyone can do a cantrip or two, and there are some moderately accomplished spellslingers, but the best of the best are on a whole other level, and inspire the awe reserved for any caster in a fantasy world with "rare" magic. Ergo, some people are special, some people aren't. Same as usual.

 

There is, of course, the argument that magic as a whole would become less "special" in such a universe, and I agree with that argument. I also don't think it's particularly important for magic as an abstract concept to be special unless that's the world-sense a storyteller is trying to evoke. The important thing is not to get into A Wizard Did It territory, where magic can simply fix everything. But when that stuff happens, it's a flaw in the world-building of a specific storyteller rather than an inherent flaw of magic as a concept.

 

So there is no confusion, I will reiterate that I'm not saying commonplace magic must be the order of things in PE's world. My point is simply that there is no inherent problem with commonplace magic unless you just hate it when magic isn't "special." Which, you know, I get, because I too have pet peeves, but any pet peeves you have are kind of your problem. I loathe Will Smith to an irrational degree, but I can still admit he's talented, and I can watch and enjoy his movies. And even if I couldn't, I wouldn't say a movie is garbage just because Will Smith is in it. I just wouldn't watch the thing.

 

I agree that a world with commonplace magic could be interesting.  The problem is, in a society chock full of magic you'd see peasants and the like begin using magic for all sorts of labor-saving reasons.  Why drive the ox yourself if you can charm it?  Hell, why not convince the guy down the street to make you a golem to do the farmwork?  

 

You see where I'm going.  In a world where everyone has magic, it won't be used for merely parlor tricks and combat.  It will be used for everything, and society will stop looking high-medieval and look more like some weird dreamland version of the Industrial Revolution.

 

Which would be a totally awesome setting, but not what's being done here.  

Edited June 17, 2013 by eschaton

[motorizer]

 

Why does magic need to have "mystique," though? Why does it need to be special?

 

Note that I'm not arguing against either of those portrayals of magic, but rather the idea that those are the only "valid" ways to portray magic. That's certainly the easiest way to make it interesting, but it feels kind of arbitrary to say that's the only way. And does it even need to be "interesting" from a lore perspective?

 

I understand that the classic high fantasy wizard is a wizened old fellow who has spent his life studying the proper applications of "the magicks," and there's no inherent problem with that archetype. Wizards in D&D match it to a tee, and I absolutely get the argument for carrying that aspect of D&D over into PE. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be carried over. I'm speaking about fantasy games in general right now, not necessarily PE.

 

With that said (and you should take it as read from this point on), I think a world in which magic is commonplace and acknowledged as such could easily be just as interesting as a world in which it's rare, and that the "magical" feeling its rarity gives you could be replicated in other ways.

 

Look at, say, kung fu movies. Everyone in a kung fu movie is usually able to do some small amount of kung fu, but kung fu masters are as rare as wizards, and their superhuman displays of skill are appropriately astonishing. The mooks who can do some basic punches and kicks are so ubiquitous, and so easily trounced by the hero (who is often a journeyman of local renown, not a true master), that we are instinctively unimpressed by them even if they do stuff that would be impressive in another type of story. And we are likewise only somewhat impressed by the journeyman hero's kung fu when he or she goes up against a master.

 

(Yeah, I know, CTHD isn't technically a kung fu picture, and Li Mu Bai isn't technically a master, but it serves well enough as an example.)

 

Now apply that to a fantasy universe. Pretty much everyone can do a cantrip or two, and there are some moderately accomplished spellslingers, but the best of the best are on a whole other level, and inspire the awe reserved for any caster in a fantasy world with "rare" magic. Ergo, some people are special, some people aren't. Same as usual.

 

There is, of course, the argument that magic as a whole would become less "special" in such a universe, and I agree with that argument. I also don't think it's particularly important for magic as an abstract concept to be special unless that's the world-sense a storyteller is trying to evoke. The important thing is not to get into A Wizard Did It territory, where magic can simply fix everything. But when that stuff happens, it's a flaw in the world-building of a specific storyteller rather than an inherent flaw of magic as a concept.

 

So there is no confusion, I will reiterate that I'm not saying commonplace magic must be the order of things in PE's world. My point is simply that there is no inherent problem with commonplace magic unless you just hate it when magic isn't "special." Which, you know, I get, because I too have pet peeves, but any pet peeves you have are kind of your problem. I loathe Will Smith to an irrational degree, but I can still admit he's talented, and I can watch and enjoy his movies. And even if I couldn't, I wouldn't say a movie is garbage just because Will Smith is in it. I just wouldn't watch the thing.

 

I agree that a world with commonplace magic could be interesting.  The problem is, in a society chock full of magic you'd see peasants and the like begin using magic for all sorts of labor-saving reasons.  Why drive the ox yourself if you can charm it?  Hell, why not convince the guy down the street to make you a golem to do the farmwork?  

 

You see where I'm going.  In a world where everyone has magic, it won't be used for merely parlor tricks and combat.  It will be used for everything, and society will stop looking high-medieval and look more like some weird dreamland version of the Industrial Revolution.

 

Which would be a totally awesome setting, but not what's being done here.  

 

and as I've said before it wouldn't be called magic or thought of as magic if it was commonplace, it would be just something you do.

an example (in reverse) is in the recent series of game of thrones where Gilly thought Sam was a wizard because he could read.

things are only thought of as magic by those who don't understand them....

[Lephys]

^ It could still be called "magic." I mean, it's gotta be called something. Just like exercising is called exercising, or labor is called labor, even though everyone can do it. Hell, in today's world, it'd probably be its own acronym.

[Jarmo]

 

I agree that a world with commonplace magic could be interesting.  The problem is, in a society chock full of magic you'd see peasants and the like begin using magic for all sorts of labor-saving reasons.  Why drive the ox yourself if you can charm it?  Hell, why not convince the guy down the street to make you a golem to do the farmwork?  

 

You see where I'm going.  In a world where everyone has magic, it won't be used for merely parlor tricks and combat.  It will be used for everything, and society will stop looking high-medieval and look more like some weird dreamland version of the Industrial Revolution.

 

 

But what if world full of magic wouldn't mean everybody is a 10th level necromancer?

 

For a hard day of plowing the field, the farmhands with the knack would apply bulls strength lite or very small bears endurance,

after a day at work, the wives would cast cure minor wounds to soothe the aching muscles.

 

If the bull gets sick, you'd try to heal it yourself, with spells that do little more than aspirin.

A village healer might know more potent stuff, up to antibiotics level.

 

And sure, the richer plantations might even have a couple of golems pulling the plow.

Expensive things, requiring much costly maintenance, but giving an advantage nonetheless, not to speak of prestige.

There'd be talk of the usage of undead in field work in the neighboring kingdom, might be true.

 

Warriors in a battle, would harden their skins and sharpen their blades with spells. Gaining +1 to AC and damage.

Some would pay a mage for magic tattoos further enhancing their battle prowess.

Heroic warriors of high esteem would go into fight with flaming swords, shields sparkling with magic defenses.

[eschaton]

But what if world full of magic wouldn't mean everybody is a 10th level necromancer?

 

For a hard day of plowing the field, the farmhands with the knack would apply bulls strength lite or very small bears endurance,

after a day at work, the wives would cast cure minor wounds to soothe the aching muscles.

 

If the bull gets sick, you'd try to heal it yourself, with spells that do little more than aspirin.

A village healer might know more potent stuff, up to antibiotics level.

 

And sure, the richer plantations might even have a couple of golems pulling the plow.

Expensive things, requiring much costly maintenance, but giving an advantage nonetheless, not to speak of prestige.

There'd be talk of the usage of undead in field work in the neighboring kingdom, might be true.

 

Warriors in a battle, would harden their skins and sharpen their blades with spells. Gaining +1 to AC and damage.

Some would pay a mage for magic tattoos further enhancing their battle prowess.

Heroic warriors of high esteem would go into fight with flaming swords, shields sparkling with magic defenses.

 

I think the problem is if you have magic for everyone, and not a secret cabal, it's very likely you'll have, for lack of a better term, "magical engineers" who begin systematizing magic.  Even if they cannot actually figure out how to make commoner magic more potent, maybe they'll figure out how to link everyone up together (so a whole village can build a barn with telekinesis), or how to use magic in concert with physical items in ways to make everyday life easier (maybe a mildly-charmed plow+1 results in faster farmwork, hence the need for less farm labor).  Literate people will begin exchanging their "tricks" through letters, and as time passes, society will get more efficient.  

 

The bottom line is you will see something like the industrial revolution happening, but with a distinctive magic focus.  In conventional technologically-stagnant settings, there is the excuse that the wizards horde their knowledge - using it for either personal self-aggrandizement, or battling with one another.  But in a world where everyone has it, even people of modest means, people will look for ways for magic to merely make them rich.  And there goes the high medieval setting.   

Edited June 20, 2013 by eschaton

[Ffordesoon]

@Eschaton:

 

But you're making the assumption that the person who came up with that system of magic didn't create inbuilt safeguards against "magical engineering," as you put it. But that doesn't have to be the case. In fact, the problem of systematized magic is an easy one to solve. If you don't want "magical engineers" to systematize magic, make the source of the magic something that's inherently difficult or impossible to systematize.

 

When magic is tied to a person's soul, for instance, it's an inherently decentralized system. Any notable magical feats that individual could perform might be the product of years of rigorous training most people would never go through, whether out of fear or laziness. Peasants might have picked up a minor spell or two over the years, but they would still have to practice before they could execute it at all reliably.

 

You could maybe harvest that magical energy using some sort of engine that runs on souls, but that would presumably have hugely negative consequences for the owners of the souls - death, perhaps, or zombification. Which, you know, would kind of defeat the purpose of industrialization. You can't make people's life easier when they're dead.

 

There - one solution to the problem you propose. I can think of at least one other without much effort, and I'm sure I could think of plenty more if I wanted to.