Dropping the Magic User

[llenlleawg]

OK. We've heard about dropping (or, more properly, never adopting) the thief, and there seems to be a buzz off and on in the OD&D/OSR world to drop clerics, as seen quite recently even on this forum. I'm wondering whether anyone ever dropped the Magic User, at least as a PC class as opposed to a monster/opponent (in the manner of the original, non-PC druid). Drop both the cleric and the MU and you have swords & sorcery. Drop just the MU and you have something rather more Arthurian in tone, in which the supernatural power on the side of the PCs is divine, with the exception of the magic items picked up along the way (great ones like Excalibur or minor ones like the ring of invisibility in the tale of Yvain, the Knight of the Lion). Having just the fighting man and the cleric (i.e. no thief or MU) would provide likewise for a more chivalric, or even Biblical theme!

Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone has considered or succeeded in making what has come to be called by the cool kids "arcane magic" something that only monsters/NPCs use, apart from magic items.

[monk]

Like most people, probably, I've played in a couple campaigns that became this, because no one chose to play a magic user. Interestingly, it does naturally turn towards a S&S feel because you become very paranoid about magic users. It helped, I guess, that these were early campaigns and we were inexperienced players (i.e. we hadn't read the whole rulebook or DMed ourselves or played every type of character yet). We were in that foggy, wonderful stage where many parts of the game rules were mysterious and unknown. We really had no idea what an enemy sorcerer might throw at us.

Incidentally, this is why I personally use and very much appreciate the method of having NPC magic-users function outside of the normal spellcasting rules. They cast spells like a monster uses powers, and usually use spells that are not on the spell lists. I think this way is easier for the DM, too. (Sorry to digress)

[geoffrey]

My Carcosa campaign drops both the magic-user and the cleric. Carcosa includes a class called the sorcerer. Sorcerers are as tough in a fight as fighting-men, plus they can perform sorcerous rituals (which take hours to complete) that conjure, bind, banish, torment, imprison, or invoke Cthulhoid entities.

VERY sword and sorcery, and pure metal.

[talysman]

If I were to drop the magic-user, I wouldn't drop the spells. I'd do this:

(1) Allow literate characters to use scrolls.
(2) Literate characters can research spells they find in spell books; character level must be twice spell's level.
(3) Research costs are the same as in the LBBs.
(4) Characters that know a spell can write a scroll for that spell (100 GP/level.)
(5) Spell fumbles for scrolls of spells you don't know, maybe even for scrolls in general.
(6) NPCs can break these rules.

No character starts out knowing magic, and trying to use it is risky. Sorcerers and wizards aren't trustworthy: you don't know what they can do. But you could, in theory, become one; it's just not a separate class.

[Deleted]

I ran a campaign in which the PC magic-users were more like clerics. They were able to wear chain and wield any weapon, though they were lousy fighters with poor hit points. Their spells were usually supportive and informative, much like a clerics; though they did have some subtly offensive spells. Their ability to turn undead was rather limited, but their healing was somewhat more powerful with CLW healing d6 + level hit points. They were able to convert any memorized spell in CLW so they were able to memorize a greater variety of spells.

NPC magic-users of the sort more familiar to D&D players were considered in league with dark powers. Their greater power came at the price of the humanity and servitude to demonic forces.

[Morandir]

Apr 20, 2012 9:50:14 GMT -6 talysman said:

If I were to drop the magic-user, I wouldn't drop the spells. I'd do this:

(1) Allow literate characters to use scrolls.
(2) Literate characters can research spells they find in spell books; character level must be twice spell's level.
(3) Research costs are the same as in the LBBs.
(4) Characters that know a spell can write a scroll for that spell (100 GP/level.)
(5) Spell fumbles for scrolls of spells you don't know, maybe even for scrolls in general.
(6) NPCs can break these rules.

No character starts out knowing magic, and trying to use it is risky. Sorcerers and wizards aren't trustworthy: you don't know what they can do. But you could, in theory, become one; it's just not a separate class.

This is actually a really interesting idea, and I think it has a great S&S feel. Powerful magic users are those who have spent lots of time/money tracking down spells and learning to use them - or who have access to a library, perhaps because they're a priest of Set or part of a sorcerous cabal, or have, as Cameron suggests, have bargained with outside forces for blasphemous knowledge.

If I wasn't in the middle of a campaign already, I'd definitely try this out!

[talysman]

Apr 20, 2012 15:04:57 GMT -6 Morandir said:

Apr 20, 2012 9:50:14 GMT -6 talysman said:

If I were to drop the magic-user, I wouldn't drop the spells. I'd do this:

(1) Allow literate characters to use scrolls.
(2) Literate characters can research spells they find in spell books; character level must be twice spell's level.
(3) Research costs are the same as in the LBBs.
(4) Characters that know a spell can write a scroll for that spell (100 GP/level.)
(5) Spell fumbles for scrolls of spells you don't know, maybe even for scrolls in general.
(6) NPCs can break these rules.

No character starts out knowing magic, and trying to use it is risky. Sorcerers and wizards aren't trustworthy: you don't know what they can do. But you could, in theory, become one; it's just not a separate class.

This is actually a really interesting idea, and I think it has a great S&S feel. Powerful magic users are those who have spent lots of time/money tracking down spells and learning to use them - or who have access to a library, perhaps because they're a priest of Set or part of a sorcerous cabal, or have, as Cameron suggests, have bargained with outside forces for blasphemous knowledge.

If I wasn't in the middle of a campaign already, I'd definitely try this out!

You could always go half-way! Keep magic-users as used in your current campaign, but allow non-magic-users to acquire magic as above.

[verhaden]

This is the core design feature of Searchers of the Unknown. Admittedly, I've played lots of one-shots but few campaigns, but it seems to work well. I think it makes for a much tenser game.

[Finarvyn]

My problem is that my wife has a "fantasy is better than reality because I can use magic in fantasy" philosophy. Essentially, she thinks that the most cool thing about role playing is being able to cast spells. She always plays magic users. That makes it hard to drop the class in my game, unless I'm willing to drop her as a player. :-P

Having said that, most S&S stories don't center around PCs who can sling spells very often. The NPC wizards are often the ones with the spells and the evil plans. I can see that a non-MU campaign could be a lot of fun.

[paulg]

Apr 22, 2012 16:51:05 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

She always plays magic users. That makes it hard to drop the class in my game, unless I'm willing to drop her as a player. :-P

This is why there are still Tolkine-ish elves in my game.

I recently started working on an all-dwarf mini-campaign. I put in "rune tablets" that give the dwarves access to minimal magic---that necessary to turn stone to flesh, for example. They're of limited availability and heavy to carry into the dungeon.

[Anathemata]

Druids were once considered monsters in OD&D, and that could be expanded to include M-Us. I like the idea that magic exists in complicated grimoires and weird little idols and devices that take time to study and use (and probably require a certain level of Intelligence). While Clerical magic is pretty reliable, Arcane wizardry is difficult and has both greater rewards and worse dangers.

[inkmeister]

This idea of dropping the magic user is of great interest to me recently. I am more and more in the camp of viewing D&D as a tool-kit, from which we can take whatever we want or need and can leave the rest.

My wife and I have been discussing it (she's one of my two main players, the other is my 12 year old nephew), and we both feel that D&D's magic system is too utilitarian, too mechanical, too "pinned down" for some of the kinds of games we want to play. We want magic to be mysterious, unpredictable, chaotic, other-worldly, often corrupting, often involving bargains with other-worldly/demonic entities. We want magic to be scary.

Given that I usually play D&D as a 2 class system anyway, it is a pretty small step to just do away with classes and consider that PC's are "generic adventurers." Actually, it is up to each player to determine their PC concept - rugged barbarian, stealthy ranger, nimble thief, righteous do-gooding crusader, charismatic leader, whatever.

There are sorcerers, but they don't play by any particular rules (hence mysterious, unpredictable, etc).

I like the idea that PC's can acquire magic via magic items, and I also like the idea of being able to do magic rituals and the like, albeit at significant personal risk. A PC that is very interested in magic will have to seek out the means to do magic, and doing so might threaten their sanity, their reputation, their health, their spiritual integrity, etc.

In all my history of gaming, very few people ever wanted to play magic users anyway. Most people wanted to be thieves and warrior types. So here it is. My next games are going to do just this, much in the same vein as Searchers of the Unknown (I too drop ability scores, but also de-randomize HP).

I'd like to hear from others who have taken a similar road, dropping the magic user.

[tombowings]

I've been thinking along the same lines. What interests me most is magic in Isle of the Unknown - how you can gain blessings from all those funky statues, pools, etc. What if those, along with magic items, were the only way to gain any hold over magic. You never know when you are going to stumble across a spell or enchantment, and its always a risk when doing so.

[Finarvyn]

You know, if you drop the magic user he will fall to earth with an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second per second.

Unless he has "feather fall" or "levitate" or other such magic, that is.

[Red Baron]

Or a parasol

[kenmeister]

Ok, if you drop the magic-user, at least keep the thief, and still allow thieves to read spells from scrolls at high level like the Grey Mouser does.

[jeff]

Dec 5, 2013 13:39:55 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

Ok, if you drop the magic-user, at least keep the thief, and still allow thieves to read spells from scrolls at high level like the Grey Mouser does.

But who creates the scrolls?

[Porphyre]

Dec 13, 2013 12:04:22 GMT -6 jeff said:

Dec 5, 2013 13:39:55 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

Ok, if you drop the magic-user, at least keep the thief, and still allow thieves to read spells from scrolls at high level like the Grey Mouser does.

But who creates the scrolls?

NPCs or sages

[oldkat]

Perhaps the idea of "classes"-at-all should be evaluated. Since the game comes from the battlefield of miniature wargaming(enhanced by some fantasy literature that is subjectively inserted), it (the game)may have seemed a logical leap that veterans returning from years of campaigns across the land would be the "adventuring" type--wanting and able to seek out old, hidden dungeons in search of treasure and wealth.
But is such, being a former soldier, or a lowly parish priest, or apprentice spellcaster, truly the defining prerequisite for adventure seekers? Those willing to risk life and limb travelling to remote locations in order to descend into subterranean situations where there is no guarantee of finding anything--except possible death!?
Is it possible to have a classless D&D game?
I don't know.

[strangebrew]

Dec 26, 2013 13:48:45 GMT -6 oldkat said:

Is it possible to have a classless D&D game?

Sounds like Marxism to me!!

I'm sure many people have tried to make a classless version of D&D. I guess I don't entirely see the point, if I wanted a game without classes there are plenty of others to choose from. I like classes in D&D cause its simple, straightforward, and really easy to just get it.

[geoffrey]

How about this:

1. The only character class is the fighting-man.

2. Sometimes weird things happen to people. Use the mutations tables from Metamorphosis Alpha / Gamma World / Mutant Future for specifics. Call it magic.

Done.

[Red Baron]

Dec 26, 2013 22:02:10 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

How about this:

1. The only character class is the fighting-man.

2. Sometimes weird things happen to people. Use the mutations tables from Metamorphosis Alpha / Gamma World / Mutant Future for specifics. Call it magic.

Done.

Darn beat me too it.

I'm iffy on #2. Mutants in feudal japan, for instance, would make an interesting game and have lots of b movie source material, but thats not everyone's cup of tea. Its easier just to leave how the party gets their 'magic' up to the dm and his response to the actions of the party. Does one of the members get abducted by aliens and implanted with extra organs, or find one of Prince Khandive's tomes of spells, or eat the bag of magic bean stalk beans?

[oakesspalding]

I like these thought experiments because they let you think outside of the box and re-evaluate what you're trying to do without any preconceptions.

[jeff]

Dec 26, 2013 22:02:10 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

How about this:

1. The only character class is the fighting-man.

2. Sometimes weird things happen to people. Use the mutations tables from Metamorphosis Alpha / Gamma World / Mutant Future for specifics. Call it magic.

Done.

I thought about this. The only issue I have with it is that it, in effect, dumbs down the Fighting-Man class. If any Fighting-Man can gain wizardly powers (call them what you want) then Fighting-Men without those powers are now less effective and less valuable. Everyone will be trying their darndest to get "powers" instead of just letting progression and story take you where it will.

Sure the DM can manage it, but it seems like it would be frustrating.

I don't plan on dropping the MU, but I am going to make changes to the MU.

[inkmeister]

If the game was based only on the fighter class (or perhaps fighters and thieves), but the acquisition of magic powers was possible, the extra powers could be balanced by all kinds of things. Sorcery could be a dangerous and demanding art, taking a toll on the sorcerer's body, mind and soul. Powers could come at the expense of tough bargains with dark and mysterious outer beings. In a certain sense, the sorcerer would be like a cleric; not totally self reliant, but rather at the mercy of those powerful beings he or she deals with.

I like the idea of less magic in the game, and I like the idea of magic that really feels magical, not like some cool toolkit. A lot of D&D magic feels very unmagical to me: swords that detect metal (or meals, and what kind)? Spells that help one locate the nearest stash of treasure? Come on, that seems lame!

What about when the sorcerer in the old Conan movie tried to revive Conan? He didn't go "hocus pocus" and bring Conan back! Instead it was a prolonged ritual that involved scary spirits and the like. That also reminds me of the Game of Thrones episode where a witch attempts to revive the barbarian king, and it is said, roughly, that a life demands a life; life must be sacrificed to bring something else back to life. Sorcery is dark and mysterious, and, as in Game of Thrones, the results aren't necessarily what is wanted or expected. I want magic like that! D&D magic feels more like Star Trek technology than magic. So I think certain campaigns can definitely benefit from dropping the magic user as is.

[Red Baron]

Dec 27, 2013 17:24:22 GMT -6 jeff said:

Not so. If sorcery is as dangerous as it is useful than the majority of fighting men will choose to refrain from using it. There's a reason those barbarians are so afraid of magic. Its more likely to kill you than get anything done.Look at geoffrey's sorcery. Most spells have a pretty good chance of blowing you up or teleporting you into outerspace or poisoning you. And that's just during the ritual itself. You also have to worry about the giant alien god you've summoned being in a good mood, or else you're lunch. Look at all the literary characters who's sorcery is their downfall (Hint: my picture <--).

[geoffrey]

I remember that Conan in "Beyond the Black River" displayed some sorcerous prowess. He scratched into the ground that mystic symbol that kept the witch-doctor's summoned animals from tracking Conan and his companion. IIRC, Conan acquired that knowledge years before by spying on some sorcerer who scratched that same symbol onto the ground.

In general, making most magical powers two-edged swords would keep things from getting crazy. I would not want to turn the fighters into costumed super-heroes such as the X-Men, but rather hard-pressed human beings with a few more options up their sleeves to use when the chips are down.

[premmy]

Regarding both the "classless DandD" notion and the question of wizards in such a framework...

For a while now, I've been thinking about something like that, but based on Melan's Sword and Sorcery system rather than ODandD (if you know Castles and Crusades, it's something reasonably similar).

The idea is to start out with a generic "Adventurer" class. Say, d8 (or d6) HP per level, combat ability as Cleric, such-and-such Saving Throw progression, so-and-so-many skills, no limitations for weapons and armour. Then, every time you level up, you get your normal bennies (more HP, better attack, etc.), but also get to choose one item from a list of improvements, such as: improve the HD type, combat ability as Fighter, better Saving Throw in one category, extra skills, weapon specialisation (bonus to hit or damage), better unarmoured AC, and so on and so forth. This way, every character ends up gradually diverging more and more from the stock Adventurer, each according to the player's wishes.

As for magic, first the PC would need to make the appropriate associations in-game by joining a cult, earning the favour of a god (or demon lord...), attending a thaumaturgic academy, etc.. Once such learning is secured, every time he levels up again, the player has a choice: he can either use the normal improvement list, or pick from an alternative one specific to the PC's magical tuition. This second list would include the ability to cast more spells per day, various other, non-Vancian magical abilities, restricted skills such as Alchemy and other thematically appropriate improvements - but advancement on this list foregoes EVERY other improvement. Not only does he not get to pick from the normal list for that level, he doesn't even gain more HP, better attacks or saving throws.

Ultimately, this system would be all about opportunity cost. You can go full fighter (or something rogue-like) and forego magic completely, or pick your own level of involvement: you could become a really decent fighter who supplements his prowess with minor magic, a jack-of-all-trades, or a dedicated sorcerer with little hand-to-hand ability. And since the character is never sequestered into a separate class with artificial niche protection measures, magic actually remains something that potentially anyone could learn to an extent with diligence and opportunity.

[Todd]

I've been thinking along these lines as well, dropping cleric and MU but adding abilities to fighting men. Packaging stuff like Detection magic into "spell-like" abilities that could be flavored either as mystical or mundane, same with the more extraordinary thief and ranger abilities (that I want to keep). And emphasizing rituals and sympathetic magic.

[talysman]

Dec 27, 2013 17:24:22 GMT -6 jeff said:

Dec 26, 2013 22:02:10 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

How about this:

1. The only character class is the fighting-man.

2. Sometimes weird things happen to people. Use the mutations tables from Metamorphosis Alpha / Gamma World / Mutant Future for specifics. Call it magic.

Done.

I thought about this. The only issue I have with it is that it, in effect, dumbs down the Fighting-Man class. If any Fighting-Man can gain wizardly powers (call them what you want) then Fighting-Men without those powers are now less effective and less valuable. Everyone will be trying their darndest to get "powers" instead of just letting progression and story take you where it will.

I don't agree. As long as powers are acquired in play, rather than during character creation, a Fighting-Man without powers is simply someone who didn't take many risks. It's a choice. And if a player is free to choose whether to build a stronghold or not, why shouldn't the player be free to choose whether to find out how to become a shapeshifter or not, or acquire some other power? Every choice has its consequences, and those choices and consequences *are* the plot. Worrying that players might choose their own "story" seems against the spirit of old school play, to me.

My personal preference would not be using mutation tables, though. Instead, I'd stick to scrolls as the method of casting spells, and let anyone make a scroll for any spell they know. Perhaps treat every individual spell as a unique language, if you want to limit access to spells. Or only require that a spell be learned as a language if a character wants to make cheap 100 GP/level scrolls; otherwise, each scroll must be researched, like a spell, at full cost even if you've made a scroll of that spell before... and you only get one roll to see if it's successful; failed scroll research rolls result in cursed scrolls.