Lawful as eating.
--Leontes, A Winter’s Tale, Act V scene 3
Leontes pleads that magic, a crime in Shakespeare’s time, be made as legal and natural as the simple act of feeding oneself. In the gaming realm of Dungeons and Dragons, magic is not only legal, but as indispensable to some player characters as eating. However, while permitted, the magic system is hardly what one could call lawful. Spellcasting is a process unlike any other in the game. While combat and skills use a simple core mechanic to resolve tests, magic changes with every new spell in every situation. If this be magic, let it be a system constant as sword swinging!
Abstract
D20 players use a simple core mechanic to determine the success or failure of their characters' actions in the game. The consistent use of this mechanic creates a game environment in which players can confidently and predictably extrapolate their characters' activities. Analysis of the rules governing magic in Core Rulebook I reveals that spells and spell-casting are inconsistent in their implementation of the system's core mechanic. This inconsistency can create an awkward game environment in which players may be unable to predict their characters' interaction with spells. Revision of spells and spell-casting rules to rely consistently and predictably on the core mechanic would make the use of magic more compatible with other activities represented under the d20 system. However, the necessity and extent of such revision depends on the players' level of comfort and involvement with the game.
Note on Scope and Citation
This essay refers to and explores the d20 gaming system as outlined in Core Rulebook I v.3.5 (I), Core Rulebook II v.3.5 (II), and Core Rulebook III v.3.5 (III). I have chosen to use the Core Rulebooks instead of the more general System Reference Document (SRD) for two reasons:
- The rulebooks afford me an easier method of citation (for example, page 4 of Core Rulebook I will be cited as: I.4).
- The rulebooks limit this essay to the discussion of those spells, spell-casting classes, and other game rules that may reasonably be called the most familiar to the greatest number of readers.
Section I: The Core Mechanic
D20 players use a simple core mechanic to determine the success, failure, and effect of their characters' actions in the game. The consistent use of this mechanic creates a game environment in which players can confidently and predictably extrapolate their characters' activities.
The core mechanic is defined explicitly in the introduction to Core Rulebook I:
Dungeons and Dragons uses a core mechanic to resolve all actions in the game. This central game rule keeps play fast and intuitive.
The Core Mechanic: Whenever you attempt an action that has some chance of failure, you roll a twenty-sided die (d20). To determine if your character succeeds at a task (such as attacking a monster or using a skill), you do this:If the result equals or exceeds the target number (set by the DM or give in the rules), your character succeeds. If the result is lower than the target number, you fail. ( I.4-5)
- Roll a d20.
- Add any relevant modifiers.
- Compare the result to a target number.
I would have to agree with you that the system is far more complex than standard combat requiring more numbers, but I don't see it as a problem. Having multiple methods of dealing with a spell isn't a bad thing. Also the different types of saves are necessary, not just for spells, but for other effects as well.
Spells make use of existing mechanics. I don't think they're adding complexity. The process of figuring out what spells you want might be a complex thing, but the system itself will be that complex with or without magic's current incarnation.
One of the proposals seems to be to shift saving throws from the burden of the opponent to the attacker (i.e., saves would become like AC, and be static). This does nothing to "fix" magic, it simply changes who is rolling. Yes, PCs are rolling to beat the opponent's now-fixed saves, but the opponents still roll to beat the PC's fixed saves. You've taken the PCs ability to resist away and changed it so that only those attacking with magic make the rolls. I think more players than not would balk at this change, feeling as if they've been made powerless against already powerful magical assaults.
Second, SR checks can be considered kin to the melee attacker's grapple check. A grappler must first make an attack roll simply to hit, then make a second opposed roll to win the grapple. With a SR check, the attacker makes a level check "to hit" and then the victim makes a save to see if effects are applied. The main difference is the opposed SR is static, while the grapple check is opposed.
Much could be said to be the similar situation between Concentration checks and trip attempts. Again, the trip must first hit, then an opposed check is made to see if the victim is knocked prone. Likewise, concentration checks are triggered when an opponent is struck in combat. The "opposed" roll is against a DC set by the damage dealt. Both have similar results - a character knocked prone often loses their attack regaining their feet and/or suffers an attack while attempting to get up, while the spellcaster risks losing his spell for the round should he fail his concentration check. Perhaps the main difference is the fact that spellcasters need merely be threatened to be required to make a concentration check (usually a much easier one, however). These aspects do not need to be changed.
However, one thing that D&D has always lacked in the spell system was some sort of resolution for determining the successful completion of a spell - unlike attacks or skill checks, spells never fail to be invoked unless they are purposely interrupted. Instead, D&D decided to use a system where casters were limited to a number of spells per day that automatically go off, though they are not guaranteed to affect the target.
I am in the dark how such a system might be implemented; if the difficulty to produce a spell is too low, magic becomes too easy. If the difficulty is too high, no one will use the system. The Truenamer class is perhaps the only class I have seen this line of thinking applied to; the question would be whether a similar system would work for the regular line of D&D spells.
Not meaning to nitpick, but Fox's Cunning is an Intelligence boost, Eagle's Splendor is the Charisma boost.
No, no-- your nitpicking is welcome. If I'm going to affect an academic approach to this, I should have crossed my t's and dotted my lower case j's. Also, d'oh!
Said Stormonu:
A well presented article, but ultimately flawed.
I'll acknowledge that I may have oversimplified the case in my favor, but I don't think it's fatally flawed (also, thank you
).Your point about contested magic/saving throws is well taken-- Matthew77 also pointed this out to me in this post on the Psionics board. In response, I'd make the NPCs' saving throws and spell DCs static (10 + rating), while the players' saving throws and spell checks are dynamic (d20 + rating). Such a set-up seems to offer what I personally want: to put the dice in the players' hands more consistently, but let the DM set the difficulty for tasks.
You are also right to bring up the multi-stage nature of grappling and tripping, since I side-stepped it in my argument. (I'll also leave out for the moment the fact that I've never met any grappling rules I've liked in any game and assume the D20 grappling works fine ;) ). My objection to a grappling/spell resistance comparison is that not every creature has the option of spell resistance, and a creature that has spell resistance can't always use it against spells. Spell resistance could work more like damage resistance, with which it shares an obvious term. Spell resistance could just boost saving throws, if its point is to defend the possessor. It could work more like concealment or cover, if it's intended to make the possessor an elusive target. If the game purpose of spell resistance is to make the spellcasters work a little harder, it could even work more like counterspelling. Grappling is a tactic that's available to everybody, even those who would be abysmally bad at it-- spell resistance is an irregular (and irregularly used) trait.
Inconsistency like that makes me wonder about what spells are and what spellcasters do. There are certain spells (detect magic, read magic, dispel) that I think should be part of a wizard's job description. There are some metamagic feats (Heighten Spell, Empower Spell) that I think should be part of how a spell basically works. A lot of this got taken on in Arcana Evolved, and I consider that an excellent model for magic in D20. But it was the warlock from Complete Arcane that really got me started on this essay. I like the way the warlock works-- the eldritch blast, the invocations, the class features. I like it because the class is obviously magical yet simple to use, and no less interesting for its simplicity. And I think part of why the warlock works so well for me is that it's more consistent in what it does than any other spellcasting class. It's not perfect, but it's certainly something I'd hold up as an example of good design for D20.
My objection to a grappling/spell resistance comparison is that not every creature has the option of spell resistance, and a creature that has spell resistance can't always use it against spells. Spell resistance could work more like damage resistance, with which it shares an obvious term. Spell resistance could just boost saving throws, if its point is to defend the possessor. It could work more like concealment or cover, if it's intended to make the possessor an elusive target. If the game purpose of spell resistance is to make the spellcasters work a little harder, it could even work more like counterspelling. Grappling is a tactic that's available to everybody, even those who would be abysmally bad at it-- spell resistance is an irregular (and irregularly used) trait.
Inconsistency like that makes me wonder about what spells are and what spellcasters do. There are certain spells (detect magic, read magic, dispel) that I think should be part of a wizard's job description. There are some metamagic feats (Heighten Spell, Empower Spell) that I think should be part of how a spell basically works. A lot of this got taken on in Arcana Evolved, and I consider that an excellent model for magic in D20. But it was the warlock from Complete Arcane that really got me started on this essay. I like the way the warlock works-- the eldritch blast, the invocations, the class features. I like it because the class is obviously magical yet simple to use, and no less interesting for its simplicity. And I think part of why the warlock works so well for me is that it's more consistent in what it does than any other spellcasting class. It's not perfect, but it's certainly something I'd hold up as an example of good design for D20.
The comparison between grappling and SR, I think, was quite clever. If you take into account that differences in size (SR or no SR) can modify whether or not a smaller opponent has even a slight chance of success in a grapple, it really comes out about the same. I had never considered that before, just that Spell Resistance was the "Magic Armor Class" that some monsters had, and others didn't.
However, I also agree with your view on SR as similar to Damage Reduction, though I think I may have yet another solution.
Spells that allow SR that target a creature with SR incur a sort of "magic attack of opportunity." The target of the spell gets to make a special caster level check against a DC of 10 + 1/2 the caster level of the attacking spellcaster. If successful, the defender deals 1d6 + Charisma modifier points of damage (if a non-spellcaster) or 1d8 + 1-1/2 Charisma (if a spellcaster) to the attacking spellcaster.
This then reflects on spells that try to alter the reality of another free-willed creature versus spells that simply change the fabric of reality for some other purpose, just as a nonmagical object usually does not receive a saving throw against magic unless held by a creature that opposes the will of the spellcaster.
I say Charisma because it is the ability score that represents force of will and power of personality. It is the ability score that determines the deflection bonus of incorporeal creatures and the deities. Just as Strength is to melee attacks, and Dexterity is to ranged attacks, so Charisma is to "Spell Resistance" attacks.
1) All PCs/NPCs/creatures have a Spell Resistance Class rating right next to their Armor Class rating on their sheet. (Probably something like 10 + will save + natural spell resistance + any modifiers, so 10-14 for most human(oid) targets who aren't using buff spells).
2) Before a spell works, the caster has to roll the equivalent of an attack on the target. They do this by making a caster level check (or possibly a concentration check? as long as it's always one or the other) which is opposed by the static SRC (Spell Resistance Class) of the target. Inanimate targets have an SRC of zero?
3) If the Caster Level Check equals or exceeds the SRC, the spell works. There are no additional saves to mitigate the results.
This seems awesome to me, if only because the target always gets to use his/her/its will to oppose the caster's magic, which seems somehow more realistic (if that word can be applied to magic). And yes, it would make it a ton easier.
ap