On magic sub-systems

I’m working through the spells for my game ~ a laborious process that involves several different angles at one time, which is easily bogged down by obsessing over systems, hierarchies and unrelated details ~ all of which easily makes for worthwhile writing material . . . but there is one topic that’s on my mind of late, that I wish to explore more thoroughly here.

(Yes, dear reader, this is my attempt at getting back into the habit of producing content for this site. I’m not certain I’ll ever be able to openly explore my state of mind over these past six months but I’m also not certain that it’s necessary to do so. What matters, at this point, is that I make the effort to engage, in order to lift myself from this place of ennui.)

I’ve observed before how the older versions of D&D ~ specifically, AD&D, both 1st and 2nd editions ~ tried to shoehorn game mechanics into their spell system. I say “shoehorn” because, in hindsight, the use of the spell system isn’t necessarily the best approach for these mechanics.

Take, for instance, the “meta-magic” system. This is so named for the approach taken by 3rd Edition, where certain feats were classified as “metamagic” because they gave the player the ability to alter spells; but the system did not originate with 3e. Rather, it started with AD&D, specifically the Tome of Magic, which describes a handful of spells that are written to alter the features or statistics of other spells. For instance, squaring the circle lets the caster alter the shape (or area) of the next spell he casts. Other metamagic spells include dilation (increase the spell’s area); augmentation (increases damage); and far reaching (increases the spell’s range). At a glance, I’d estimate there are about 30 to 40 spells that fall within the purview of metamagic, in the sense that the spell in question is specifically written to target other spells.

(If we use that definition, we have to include dispel magic and anti-magic shell in our list, among others. I am not convinced this is a bad approach.)

Where this goes, in terms of the game’s development, is toward the adoption of other rules systems. 3rd Edition took the metamagic spells and turned them into metamagic feats, where each aspect of a given spell ~ such as its range, area, duration, components, etc. ~ could be “manipulated” or “altered” by the spellcaster. I find this to be a fairly elegant solution, in the sense that it 1) gives more options to the players and 2) it fits within the overall concept of magic as a sort of science, subject to experimentation to discover its rules and limitations. In other words, it serves both a mimetic and diegetic purpose, and I’m inclined to take a similar approach to other magical sub-systems within the game.

In AD&D, if you want to craft magic items, you need access to enchant an item and permanency, in addition to any other spell the DM requires for the specific item you seek to create. Absent these two critical spells, you simply cannot create permanent magical items. You might be able to enchant an item and impart a specific ability (depending on the spells you know), but you can’t make it permanent. Likewise, permanency has specific rules (in the spell’s description) that limit its functionality to creature. If you want to (permanently) apply a specific spell effect to an item, you need to know the companion spell.

Similarly, the creation of golems requires knowing certain spells (or having access to certain magic items). The same applies to the creation of clockwork devices or the animation of undead. Indeed, it seems that AD&D went the route of placing a great deal of neat skills and abilities into the hands of players, but only through the requirements of 1) playing a wizard (or, in some cases, a priest) and 2) giving up access to other spells.

Not that this is an inherently bad thing. Take, for example, the spell find familiar. As written, it’s a great spell, from a purely mechanical point of view. By that, I mean that it forces the player to make a choice: if the player wants a familiar, they have to accept that they’re giving up one of their known spells for the chance of acquiring the familiar they want. Because it’s not as simple as “trade a 1st-level spell for a familiar of my choice;” rather, the player is accepting the risk that they don’t get the familiar they want. (Then again, the list of familiars includes both the pseudodragon and the imp, so the player is accepting the chance of getting a really good roll.) More to the point, there’s a spell specifically written to grant your familiar additional powers; meaning if you invest a couple of 1st-level spells into your familiar, you can get an asset that augments your game in both a mimetic and diegetic manner.

I can see taking the familiar spells ~ find familiar and familiar enhancer ~ and turning them into skills . . . or even creating a new sub-system centered around the acquisition and use of a familiar, similar to a druid’s animal companion . . . and I might do that one day. But for the moment, these two spells are enough to give the player a real choice. The list of familiars (and their associated stats) isn’t so overpowering as to unbalance the game. And giving up two 1st-level spells (at the most) to have a chance of acquiring (and using) a relatively powerful familiar . . . it feels right. It feels right because, clearly, the player doesn’t have to do it but, if he does, he’s not losing anything in the bargain except a couple of low-level spells. It’s a fair tradeoff and, overall, a good use of the game’s existing rules.

In the case of golems, undead and metamagic, however, it’s not a fair trade. There are simply too many options in those categories. In other words, if I were to use only spells to limit access to these abilities, I would be creating a certain kind of game and I’m not convinced that’s the kind of game I want to run.

Consider this update to the Tao of D&D, specifically the Steam & Gasgear study. Mechanically, the system is straight forward: the player uses their knowledge points in this study as a resource, indicative of their ability to build contraptions and to maintain them in good working order. In this way, the player is able to build as many devices as they like (that is, as they have time and resources to build), but they can only use as many as they’re able to maintain (which varies with each device, as some are more complex and time consuming than others).

In other words, it’s a game system that takes the concept of building and maintaining clockwork (or steampunk) devices away from the mechanics of the spell system. An illusionist doesn’t require the enchant an item spell. The player doesn’t have to invest in magic that specifically affects clockwork devices. This is simply something that the character can do, that they can specialize in if they want to, and that augments the player’s existing options, rather than forcing a zero sum cost analysis.

Likewise, the Tao of D&D has a study for Golems (which Alexis has worked on but hasn’t posted, as of this writing). With this study, the mage knows how to create a golem-like creature (and how to control it). And I think that’s brilliant. It’s a recognition that the limiting factor to the creation of golems isn’t access to the appropriate magic; it’s access to the appropriate resources, such as a laboratory and the materials necessary to craft the creature in question. Any mage can create a homunculus but not every mage has the materials on hand (or the laboratory in good working order) to do so.

Thus, I find myself looking at these magic sub-systems (based on the spells from my AD&D list) and thinking, “Why don’t I make this into a different sub-system within my rules framework?” I mean, I’m already doing exactly that with regard to spell components: players aren’t required to use spell components but if they do (and if they have the appropriate skill), they can manipulate their spells’ stats. The limiting factor becomes not the knowledge of a given spell or skill, but rather, access to the appropriate component. If a player wants to apply metamagic principles to their spells, they’re more than welcome to; they just have to get their hands on rare and expensive components.

Okay . . . let’s back up a moment and try to organize these thoughts. Based on the spells I’m looking at, from AD&D, I see the following sub-systems:

• Metamagic: the manipulation of spells’ attributes or qualities, through the use of other spells;
• Magic Item Creation: the crafting of magic items, through the use of two spells and an awful lot of DM fiat;
• Clockwork Devices: a subset of the above, to be sure, but there are a few spells that deal specifically with these items, separate from magic items as a whole;
• Golems: another subset of magic item creation, but different in the sense that these are creatures;
• Raising or Animating Undead: basically the same as golems, but with a different category of creatures.

The first is a category I’ve addressed through its own sub-system. Same with the second, since Alexis’ system breaks magic item creation into a variety of skills, spreading the ability to make magic objects across several classes. And again, the same applies to clockwork devices, since we now have a study under the illusionist class; and golems are under the mage and druid classes, giving a different angle to address those creations.

This leaves the final category as: Animation, the study of life and death forces, specifically in reference to creating undead creatures that can be controlled by the wizard.