[D&D] A magical world without magic

[Black Plauge]

So, with the publishing of Tome of Battle, I think I might have the right flavor mix for a homebrew idea that's been brewing around in my head for quite some time.

Basically, I'm thinking of a homebrew CS where traditional spellcasting (i.e. that presented in the PHB) doesn't exist. Instead, psionics, incarnum, and martial disciplines fill the niche normally taken up by magic in traditional D&D.

What do people think of this kind of world? Would such a CS appeal to you? Why or why not?

Given the inclusion of psionics, incarnum, and martial disciplines, would the non-magical classes from the PHB (barbarian, fighter, & rogue) be relegated to NPC classes or multiclass dips? I don't want this to happen, but I want to know if others think it would happen.

[Linklegacy77]

I think it is incredibly interesting, and I'm also interested in why you chose those three particularly, but didn't include other systems such as the three from Tome of Magic (pact, shadow, and truename magic).

It would be very interesting to me. I don't think they should be relegated to NPC classes or dips, for the most part they are still balanced against it. You still can't outdamage the barbarian very easily, and with the standard spellcasting gone, the game will be a bit more balanced.

[itches]

What do people think of this kind of world?

Entirely workable and potentially very enjoyable.

Would such a CS appeal to you?

No

Why or why not?

I have an irrational dislike of psionics in a fantasy setting.

Yes I know it's stupid. Still in a setting without magic in the traditional sense that dislike tends to fade.

[Black Plauge]

I think it is incredibly interesting, and I'm also interested in why you chose those three particularly, but didn't include other systems such as the three from Tome of Magic (pact, shadow, and truename magic).
Well, I have this idea for a spirit/mind/body triumverate of magic, and those three seemed to fit the best. Also, those three have the best support mechanically, each having at least an entire book dedicated to them.

It would be very interesting to me. I don't think they should be relegated to NPC classes or dips, for the most part they are still balanced against it. You still can't outdamage the barbarian very easily, and with the standard spellcasting gone, the game will be a bit more balanced.
I'm not saying that I would force them this way. I'm wondering if that is what would end up happening. I suppose the better way of phrasing the question is this: If you were a player in this kind of campaign, would you consider playing a fighter, barbarian, or rogue alongside other party members who are playing a magical character in one of these three disciplines?

[hedgeknight]

I'm sorta in the same mind with itches - sounds cool, but I'm not interested because I really don't like psionics - and I can't explain why either! :)

In the past few months, I have also been interested in a more non-magical, magical setting - dropping wizardly magics for more "natural" magics - sorcery, runes, druidic, etc. I envision a fantasy world were magic wielders are more in touch with the power inherent in all things natural. I'm working on some ideas now in my Quick Post scenarios.

But again, great idea - hope it works for you.
Peace!
-g-

[nightinverse]

What do people think of this kind of world? Would such a CS appeal to you? Why or why not?

Given the inclusion of psionics, incarnum, and martial disciplines, would the non-magical classes from the PHB (barbarian, fighter, & rogue) be relegated to NPC classes or multiclass dips?

1. Interesting.
2. Perhaps.
3. I like magic, specifically when not presented in a spell point system - but I can take psionics for novelty. Incarnum I might not be so hot on, no access to the texts.
4. They shouldn't be, but I can't really say.

[Linklegacy77]

BP: If you ever get the game off the ground, count me in. I love all three systems, and have access to all three sorts. I wouldn't play a barbarian, simply for the novelty of finally being able to play one of the three (many people don't like psionics for some reason I don't understand, and don't have access to incarnum or Tome of Battle)

[AbusePuppy]

1. Nice idea. Alternate-rules worlds can be a lot of fun. (One of the few really talented GMs I know ran an IRL game of D&D where elves' favored class was Barbarian, 'cause they were all freaky cannibals.)

2. Yeah, but I'm not really out for another game right now.

3.
So everyone knows the rules to most systems. That's fine; it's good to keep things moving. The problem is that everyone knows all the rules. Every damn one of them. They know the pluses on every magic item, the HD of every monster, the disciplines of every clan and the ballistic/impact ratings of every armor. It's really hard to suprise the players- and hence to suprise their characters- when they already know exactly what they're facing, down to the last detail. Many has been the D&D session where a group puzzled out the AC of a monster in only two or three rounds of combat and started calling the hits/misses for the GM.

And frankly it's not all that interesting. If I wanted to compare monster stats to my characters I could use a random generator and decide whether I could beat a given encounter- and chances are I'd be right. New and unusual things, things the players don't expect or even nescessarily understand are what keeps encounters interesting. And, to make a long story short (or is that the other way around?) changing up the rules on the players throws them off. How good is a Wand of Magic Missile if no one else has one? Good? Bad? Worthwhile? Would you still use it at level 10? Who knows? In fact, I would almost suggest trading Psion for something else, as they're only a hair's breadth from the "normal" casters.


4. I don't think they would be any weaker than in a normal D&D game. (I.E. underpowered compared to casters but still well worth considering.)

Addendum: I'm very sad that Tome of Battle is one of the books I still don't have access to and I'm not really willing to shell out thirty bucks for it. The martial classes in there look pretty excellent, though.
__________________
"Until then however you can take comfort knowing that naked girls with fake prosthetic ears will soon cast magical growth spells on your groin region while secretly siphoning away your dignity. There's no potion to restore that, my friends."

[hedgeknight]

3. [rant]
So everyone knows the rules to most systems. That's fine; it's good to keep things moving. The problem is that everyone knows all the rules. Every damn one of them. They know the pluses on every magic item, the HD of every monster, the disciplines of every clan and the ballistic/impact ratings of every armor. It's really hard to suprise the players- and hence to suprise their characters- when they already know exactly what they're facing, down to the last detail. Many has been the D&D session where a group puzzled out the AC of a monster in only two or three rounds of combat and started calling the hits/misses for the GM.

AMEN AP!
I don't mind folks knowing the rules as long as they remember two things: I don't care enough about all the rules to learn them and I bend them and shape them as I see fit for my campaign.
As long as they can "go with the flow" for the sake of the story, then we are cool. If not....I will kill off their character. :devious: :evil:

-g-

[zachol]

Personally, I dislike Magic of Incarnum.

I don't remember why, but when I read the book I really disliked it.

The idea of replacing magic with psionics, incarnum, and the martial disciplines could work.
However, it doesn't especially appeal to me any more than a normal game setting.

So, interesting, but I wouldn't search it out.

[Doomsmile]

I also have had incredibly bad experiences with Incarnum, though I doubt anyone really cares... except for the people who suffered through that pain with me.

Replacing magic with psionics, though, really wouldn't create much more than a thematic differance, assuming the understanding I have of the system is the correct one. D&D psionics always struck me as a bit too much like magic for my tastes... well, third edition psionics, at least. 2nd edition psionics was just plain arcane- I never made any headway trying to figure that out.

[Linklegacy77]

Psionics in 3.5 is very different than magic.

As I've said, I would love to play in the game.

[zachol]

Personally, what gets me about both psionics and the system presented in tome of battle is the fact that they both have the '9 levels' system from magic.

They really just seem like remakes of magic, and aren't really their own 'thing.'


I would personally really like to see a system of magic that would be slightly more free-form, and not so much of a "9 levels" or "12 levels" or "4 levels" or any sort of level-based thing.

Psionics got close, but it still seems very locked into the level-based system that 'normal' magic is.

[Linklegacy77]

D&D wanted to keep the whole system simplified, and it was easier to do so with things that were still recognizable with the d20 system.

That is probobly why psionics is more commonly used that the Tome of Magic systems or Magic of Incarnum: because they are more easily recognized.

[zachol]

Yes, they wanted to keep the system simplified, but they don't need to put out new things - psionics and the maneuver (sp?) system aren't fundamentally different from magic, and while it's true that "if you don't like it, don't get it," I still think it's not much more interesting than magic.


To put it another way, BP's original question was whether I would be interested in a system that has psionics, etc replace magic.
My answer is no, because there's not really much of a difference between magic and the other systems, so I don't see how much of a change you get from getting rid of magic and replacing it with psionics.

There is a difference, but beyond flavor, you could just call psionics "psionic magic," and psionic manifesters "psionic casters," and there wouldn't be much more of a difference between a divine and an arcane caster than between an arcane and a psionic caster.

[Linklegacy77]

The difference is that the system works differently. Instead of spell slots you have power points: a sort of mana if you will. Low level powers remain useful in high levels, wheras with magic they do not. You can put more energy into a power to make it stronger, wheras in magic a fireball from a 10^ caster is always the same.

Also, if you get rid of magic-psionic transparancy, then mechanical effects become quite different.

While the ToB system if very much like magic, it is also very different, but not just from a flavor perspective. Firstly, it isn't based off of a particular ability score. It just is. A 2nd level manuever for a guy with 50 str and a guy with 20 str does the exact same effect. It also has the advantage of not being magical in nature: it is all extraordinary unless otherwise specified. (a few maneuvers are supernatural)

[zachol]

I wasn't saying that they aren't different.

I'm saying that they still feel remarkably the same, despite the differences.

The ToB system doesn't feel like its own system, it feels like the magic system with some changes to make it more martially-oriented.
However, there are definitely some differences - there isn't really a specific limit, your choice of available maneuvers are 'stacked,' all that.
But still, when I was reading it, I was comparing it to the magic system, and noting all the similarities.

While it is true that it would make it 'easier' to learn if you have the magic system working, it feels like they really could've made it into its own system.
Instead, it really does feel like just a different approach to the basic crunchy bits of magic.

[Linklegacy77]

They tried separate systems with Magic of Incarnum and with Tome of Magic.

Neither did as well as wizards had hoped. While Psionics doesn't have an excuse (it was before both of those), Tome of Battle does in the fact that new systems weren't selling.

[zachol]

So, my point is that I wouldn't be as interested in a campaign that replaced magic with psionics and ToB as I would with one that tried to use some of the ToM systems.

I'm not explaining which is a good idea for WotC - a system that has the same basics, but that changes how it's presented, would likely sell well.
And I'm not saying that I dislike Psionics or ToB.

But, if we're trying to get something other than the usual magic system, I think it would be a better idea to go beyond just psionics and ToB, which feel a lot like the normal magic system.

[Doomsmile]

I think the reason Magic of Incarnum didn't sell very well might have had something to do with poor ballancing, though I may well be wrong.

[Mercutio]

I think it's more to do with the odd Eastern flavor. Most westerners cannot totally grasp eastern religions, especially ones like Hinduism - which Incarnum is clearly based on. The magic system from that book has all kinds of flavor, and I like it a lot because I like eastern mythology, but it's so different from what most people understand and are willing to learn, that they dismiss it out of hand as being broken or just too hard to "get".

That said, I agree with zachol's sentiment in theory. Most of the new "systems" out there read and play out like the arcane magic system that D&D has had since its inception. It's sad to me that Wizards loses money on their new attempts, because all the other books seem like rehashes to me. If I wanted to rehash things, I could do it myself with house rules. The new stuff (Incarnum, Tome of Magic) truly bucks the system and isn't something I'd think to create in a house rule. Maneuvers, etc, however, I have thought about.

I'd be interested in a system that did away with arcane magic, but I'd like to see psionics go simply because I feel the same way about it that several other posters do. I don't like psionics in fantasy gaming, and then when pointed out how similar it is to magic and the psionic/magic transparency, it seems to me not so much a new and different concept, as a new way to use an old concept. Much of psionics duplicates spells, which seems to me to be a cheap way to change the rules into spell points. Why not just use a spell points system?

[Linklegacy77]

Because psionics is completely differnet in flavor, and it isn't the same as spell points.

Spell points can't be used to augment a power.

[LynMars]

I have to agree there. When I played a Psion in an Eberron game a few months back, I didn't really need to take many more offensive powers after first level; I just augmented Crystal Shard (first level power) as much as it would let me each level and stayed extremely useful doing it. I ended up focusing my other powers on more support type and just neat things.

And everything in D&D is going to be level-based. Cuz d20 is a level-based game, so it's all built around that structure. No real way around it, unless you're doing something like Mutants and Masterminds, which is almost an entirely different game.

Although yeah, the rules for simply taking spells and turning them into powers is kinda annoying and kills any unique angles to either side, I've mostly only seen that in d20 Modern and Future, where psionics does make more sense, and fits better with the flavor of the world much of the time.

[AbusePuppy]

I haven't played with Magic of Incarnum in a game, but it doesn't seem terribly unbalanced to me. The rules for chakras, etc, are certainly a little wonky, but I don't think it's because they're too "Eastern" for us paleskins to get, I think it's just that it's a moderately complex system. (That also means there's a lot of cool stuff you can do with it- Incarna powers seem very flexible.)

Psionics are certainly different from normal magic flavor-wise but rules-wise they're practically identical. The whole "boosting powers" bit is cute but a wizard just uses those low-level slots for utility (Mage Armor, Invisibility, Tenser's Disc) and dedicates the higher slots to deathdoomdestructionkillkill spells. Anyone who thinks low-level slots become worthless later on isn't playing their wizard correctly.

(Psionics in 2Ed were just a chance to roll for Wild Talent, nothing else.)

And personally I thought the Tome of Magic stuff was kinda neat, although Shadow Magic seemed a bit too much of a bother for something so similar to regular magic and all of the systems were kinda... well, full of themselves. Pact Magic was quite awesome, though; it had a unique function and flavor and created an entirely new kind of character class to fill roles in a party.
__________________
"Bjorn the zombie viking! Bjorn! The last true viking! Bjorn! Carries the spirits of the Norse gods in his ribcage! NORSE MAGIC!"

[Black Plauge]

If anyone is still interested in this and in helping it become a reality, come talk about it in the place where the game is likely to happen. (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8114) If I do get to a point where I'm ready to recruit, I'll grant priority to those that help me get there.