Zingers of Mass Destruction

In the hopeful eventuality that someone other than myself reads this blog, I suppose it might be a point of interest to know where the name comes from. It arose out of a night around the table playing Shadowrun, back when I went to a regular Tuesday game.

The atmosphere at those games was very relaxed, and there was the usual banter and friendly barbing common to a group of guys. The GM would often give out an extra character point to a player who managed to amuse him with out-of-game antics. I'm generally more of an observer type, and didn't really get into the banter as much. When I would get an extra point, it was usually due to some otherwise witty remark or music reference.

My best friend and his brother were also regular players at the Tuesday Game(tm), and because they were brothers and lived with each other, they seemed to relish the ability to go at each other's throat, verbally. They also were able to go a bit further with each other, comfort-level wise, because they were brothers.

I can no longer remember the words which were said that night, nor can anyone else who attended. The two brothers were going back and forth at each other with insults, rapid-fire style, and the rest of the players were watching the show as each tried to "zing" the other. It came as a surprise to everyone (myself included) when I stepped in and tossed down a line that managed to insult and top both of them at once, stopping the crossfire. Everyone broke up laughing, and a good time and memory was had by all.

It was because of this that later on, whenever something potentially worthy was said, it would get written down, Top Ten List style, on the whiteboard by the table. And after I'd stopped being a regular player, due to moving away, I came back to visit to find that one of the players had printed up business cards for everyone who had a permanent spot at the table, reflecting what they were known for, a nickname or tagline that best represented them. Mine stated:

The Bard

Zingers of Mass Destruction

They're standing in line

And now you know the rest of the story.

Dynamic vs Static power levels for casters

To my knowledge, pretty much all fantasy games which include magic users have a system where the amount of power a mage has is based primarily on the character's level, or at least is able to be increased by gaining levels/experience. D&D uses spells per day, DDO uses spell points, and the system I grew up on used a mana system, where the mana available was dependent upon your casting stat and level.

I've recently been considering the possibility of a static power level, mana that is directly based off of the casting stat and does not increase unless that stat increases. So far it seems like this would be very beneficial for low-level casters, but at around 10th level (for my present system) would end up starting to be less preferable than a mana per level situation.

At 1st level, a mage would have more mana than they could likely use in a day, but would still be limited by how many spells they know and what level of spells they can cast. Even so, this would be a godsend to most mages, as it would practically ensure their survivability at low levels, or at least their ability to contribute. One of the major things that gets argued is the fact that mages get the short end of the stick, at least at low levels. A fighter doesn't have to spend points to swing a sword, so why should a mage's primary weapon be limited to four "swings" in a day?

At about 10th level, the mage is about on-par with how they would have been in my present system of mana per level. But past 10th level, as the mage is running into higher- and higher-powered monsters, and gaining access to more high-level, high-cost magic, their mana pool is becoming more and more restrictive. I've come up with a way for mages to learn how to conserve mana, spending the equivalent of a Feat in order to gain a discount on mana costs, so they could eventually end up with, effectively, double their power (not really, they're just spending half as much per spell). I haven't been able to playtest it yet, but looking at the numbers it seems that this would allow high-level casters some leniency back, without being as nigh-invulnerable as the current system of mana per level. At present, it looks like a 20th level caster with this new idea/system would have about 2/3rds the power of a mana/level caster, if the mana conservation feats were taken.

On the one hand, it seems this could be a real balance issue, making mages even more weak than they are in D&D, at higher levels. On the other, it seems to reflect all of the fantasy literature on the subject of magic: the more you know and understand it, the less you want to use it.

Ability Scores and Casting - Intelligence

Intelligence as a casting stat is a much better fit than Wisdom, based on the idea that a Mage or Wizard needs to be able to understand and remember the arcane formulae used in their version of magic. My main complaint here is that Intelligence is used solely for both the number of spells an arcanist may know as well as how many can be cast. In most literature on the subject, it seems that using magic, channeling the power either through or from your body, seems to have a physical impact on the magic user. Raistlin, for example, though he's hardly the only one. Even Miyazaki's Howl had physical difficulties when performing more powerful spells.

My solution to this is rather simplistic: keep Intelligence for the number of spells known or learnable, but make Constitution govern the number of spells that can be cast. In retrospect, perhaps a similar thing could be done for divine magics, keeping Wisdom for the number of spells known, and Faith for the number that can be cast, to correlate with the idea that the power comes from the deity, while the cleric is responsible for applying the power through the proper use of the spells/prayers/whatever gained from reading their sacred texts.

On second thought, however, this works well for Clerics but not necessarily so aptly for Druids. Druids, as a part of Nature, seem to draw their energy from it or from within, so they seem more closely related to Mages in that manner. Perhaps Wisdom (knowledge of the cycle of life and nature) to determine spells known, and Constitution to determine spells per day.

3rd Edition Sorcerers are a strange creature. Per the way 3rd edition spellcasting seems to work, Sorcerers should, even moreso than Wizards, have their Constitution determine the power available since it is stated that their power comes directly from within, rather than channeling latent power through the use of mystic formulae. WotC explains this as being due (possibly) to dragon blood somewhere in the lineage of the Sorcerer, citing some Force of Personality as being the power behind the spells. Yet none of this really seems to indicate how or why Charisma should determine the number of spells known. It seems that Sorcerers learn through trial and error what they can and cannot do, mostly learning Wizard spells since those have a known effect that they can try to reproduce. Sorcerer as a class really doesn't have anything going for it in 3rd edition. A specialized Wizard could cast the same number of spells, have more powerful ones available, and even get some free metamagic feats, whereas a Sorcerer actually sacrifices effectiveness with the feats, and only gets a piddling amount of extra weapons to choose from, none of which are necessary or even desirable to most people. I think I'd just as soon drop the class entirely.

Bards are odd, as well. They actually have enough difference to stand as their own class, rather than being a variation of something else, but again they're Charisma based casters, and again there's nothing that explains why Charisma, whether it's Personality, Leadership, Beauty, or whatever, should have an effect on the number of spells known. At least Bardic Tradition, whether it's passed on from one generation to the next or learned at a Bardic College, can explain how those spells are learned, but I would almost think that Intelligence, serving in its capacity as Memory, would govern what a Bard could remember and cast.

Well, I've gone beyond Intelligence here. Let's sum up.

Clerics: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Faith
Druids: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Constitution
Wizards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Constitution
Sorcerers: Are silly
Bards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Charisma

As always, comments are welcome, and constructive criticism encouraged.

Ability Scores and Casting - Wisdom

Continuing from my last topic, it's quite apparent that Wisdom within the confines of the D&D system is inappropriately termed. While great wisdom would certainly be appreciated and desired in someone entering a faith-based profession, it seems to make little actual sense to base spellcasting ability on the Wisdom stat rather than, say, a stat called Faith. After all, what about all those evil clerics worshiping their dark gods? Are we supposed to gloss over the fact that they, too, have a high wisdom? And if wisdom is used to make good choices, why are they serving Bob the Unholy Terror instead of Bill the Nice Guy? Seems to me that as soon as it was pointed out they were on the Evil side of the fence, they'd immediately jump over to the hero's team.

Let's not forget, either, the typical image of Men of Faith. On the Good team, we have meek, pious men and women, selfless to a fault, who may or may not be the most beautiful, strong, intelligent, or even wise people, but who are devoted fully to worship and serving their god or ideal of choice. On the Evil team, we have something of a dichotomy, as there are two "typical" images that come to mind. One is the haughty, domineering priest who is as likely to gain converts by a show of power as through subtlety, trying to gain further power from the deity du jour by cajoling or even outright threats. The other is the sly, conniving sort, hiding in the background or posing as a member of a more reputable faith to slowly guide new souls to the Truth of Bob the Terror.

None of the above people are necessarily wise, but generally speaking they are all faithful, pious, or at least diligent in their servitude even if they do secretly plot to take over the deity's domain someday. Faith or pious diligence, then, makes more sense to base casting off of, rather than Wisdom. Even the ability to Turn or Rebuke would make sense to be related to Faith, as it is the belief in the symbol and the deity it represents which provides the power. Yet 3rd Edition has this ascribed to Charisma, I suppose to represent one's self-confidence and ability to strike fear into the unbeating hearts of the undead. Again, however, that seems to make very little sense, as it is faith in the god, not faith in oneself, which is the catalyst. Remember, practically every deity-based religion is about extolling the virtues of the god, and abasing your unworthy self to its perfect divine grace.

To be fair, most religious texts contain a great deal of wisdom, from day-to-day living to more profound concepts. Someone who is pious and diligent in reading their scriptures is likely to have something rub off, but it's no secret that memorizing directions doesn't make you able to follow them. Even if they retain the words, understanding them is different, knowing when to appropriately say them to sound wise is yet another matter, and actually living by them is something else entirely. Yet again, it is the diligently pious person who is most likely to achieve all of this, so that they may serve better, rather than the person who is naturally wise but faithless.

Another problem I have with Wisdom in D&D is 3rd Edition's use of it for the Spot and Listen skills. I understand that a wise person may be more intuitive, and have a greater perception of people's motives, understanding the nature of mortals. Yet I do not understand how this suddenly makes them more likely to see a trap, or hear a cat padding through a nearby room. Once again, it seems like a separate ability score is needed to measure a person's external perceptiveness, rather than the internal.

I don't have a problem with keeping Wisdom as a determination of the character's wisdom, as it can be a useful thing to know when trying to properly roleplay a character. And I'm certainly not trying to bash D&D - it was a wonderful game, and it's come a long way in its efforts to allow infinite customization and provide more realism in the gameplay. Since I'm actually working on a home-brewed system, however, it behooves me to figure out what it is I do and don't like about what is hands-down the most successful game of its type.

Next up - Intelligence