Sorcery vs. Ritualism

In the interests of simplicity, then, I'm once again taking a look at the magic system.  Dividing things up into schools of magic, while it makes sense in some ways, has also imposed some limits that were not intended.  Not to mention that the sheer volume of spells I've accumulated from so many different sourcebooks in order to fill out the lists of some of the lesser endowed schools (such as Divination) makes sifting through them prohibitive.  Of course, the idea of rendering all that work invalid has only been more and more distasteful the more I've added to it, but I think something needs to give.

Part of this stems from reading through another sourcebook, Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed.  In this book, magic has been separated according to complexity.  Every level has simple spells, which any caster might access, complex spells which might require greater training or access, and exotic spells, spells that might become the signature ability of a character because of their rarity or difficulty.  And the book has its own magic spells, already separated into these categories.

Trying to just cram it into the full list would destroy the balance.  Trying to split the full list into simple, complex, and exotic is an ambitious and prohibitive project.  It would be easiest, if I want to use this method, to simply use only this one spell list, but it is tiny in comparison to what I have, and there are entire schools with less than ten spells total, and none in the first few levels.  Transmutation, as per the usual, has the most spells, including a few I disagree should be placed there, but others have also commented on the favoritism Cook shows for Transmuters.  Obviously, this wouldn't work for a system where schools of magic are learned individually.

And so I'm considering scrapping all of this subdivision, and offering simply two choices:  Sorcery, and Ritualism.

Sorcery, based on Mind stats, akin to Dragaeran sorcery, where the caster simply pulls energy (either to him or from within, I'll leave that to the player's flavor preference) and tosses it to achieve the desired effect.  This would apply also to any magic system where memorization is more important than intuition, though it could be argued that the use of magical formulae is ritualistic.

Ritualism, based on Soul stats, which might be Eastern witchcraft, or religion-based, or even bardic magic - any ritual-based magic.

I'm not sure if this will be the final iteration or not.  There are some discrepancies, I'm sure.  Discworld wizards, for example, might well be ritualists with such a system, especially when you consider some of the high-powered magic such as the Rite of AshkEnte.  But, considering how the Disc works, and what that Rite in particular does, that may not be inappropriate, especially if you go back to Pratchett's Sourcery.  More concerning might be that magic used by divine beings might be categorized as Sorcery, since they're simply lobbing energy.  Another explanation might be that they're imposing their will upon the cosmos, which would place their magic as being based on Willpower stats.

But all of this is simply a matter of semantics, a matter of the magic's origin, and not a matter of what you can do with it.  Arcana Unearthed uses the same spell list for all caster types, leaving it to the player (and a handful of various feats and methods of altering magical effects selected by the player) to determine the flavor.  This method would mean that the source of magic has no bearing on its limits - a Sorcerer might heal someone just as well or better than a Ritualist.  It does away entirely with the debate of cleric vs. mage, arcane vs. divine, and says instead, "This is what is possible.  How you get there is the fun part."

In some ways, though, it seems they should complement each other.  Let's use the Force as an example: most of the active abilities used in combat such as a Force Push or even the Jedi Mind Trick would be based in Sorcery, in the Mind.  The ability to use the Force as a means to predict the future, or to commune with deceased Masters, or to sense a great "disturbance" would be based in Ritualism, in the Soul.  So how do I account for this?

Maybe I should just forego Mind and Soul entirely, and create a Magic stat, then separate spells by casting time - anything longer than a standard action is based in Ritualism.

Intelligence, Classes, and Experience

Multiclassing has faced as well as posed a number of difficulties in D&D. Back in AD&D, the Player's Handbook gave very specific multiclassing options, based upon race. 3rd Edition removed both racial level caps as well as race-based multiclassing, but limited multiclassing through Alignment requirements, as well as arbitrary limitations (Monk and Paladin, I'm looking at you).

After reading through my previous postings, I'm certain most can figure out my thoughts regarding Alignment restrictions on classes. And trying to convince me that you can never gain another level in a certain class because you took one level of something else? No thanks.

The system I grew up on, which had been based out of AD&D, had no multiclassing or alignment restrictions. This worked out just fine for many years, until we ended up with players who started taking four or more classes in order to gain various 1st level benefits and abilities.



Yeah, like that. Only not 1/11th of a class each level, but 11 first level classes all at once.

Our DM decided this was just silly, and so it was ruled that the total number of classes you could have was limited by your character's intelligence. This made sense. Certain classes were considered to be "worth more" than others, like Paladin (because it combined both Fighter and Cleric) and Ranger (Fighter, Druid, and Mage - AD&D, remember). Overall, the system seemed logical and also helped prevent any more Multiclassing Minmaxing. The biggest problem I had with it was the feeling of obligation to "fill up" with the maximum number of classes that the character's Intelligence could support, so as not to waste it.

So over the past few days, I've put together a ruleset on multiclassing for my own system. In this system, your total number of "effective classes" is what determines your experience needed per level. No more taking a class just for one level.

Taking more classes than your Intelligence would allow can be done. Doing so, however, increases the experience needed for each level based upon how many beyond the "maximum" you took, even above what would normally be required just by having the additional classes. As any college student knows, it's much harder to remember everything when you're taking too many classes.

On the other side of the coin, if you take fewer classes than your Intelligence can support, you gain a discount on the experience needed each level, based upon the difference between the number you were allowed and how many you took. You can learn faster, because you're capable of learning more than what is being presented.

On a previous topic, I asked my wife how she viewed magic users in D&D - whether the power was coming from within, being channeled, or simply using ambient energy, or even something completely different. She reminded me of how Steven Brust has things set up in his Jhereg series: Dragaeran sorcery is more or less grabbing available energy and tossing it, while Eastern witchcraft is mentally and physically taxing on the practitioner. And then there's Pre-Empire sorcery. Let's not get into that.

Taking that into consideration, I see a correlation between Brust's witchcraft and Druids, so I would most likely leave Constitution as the power source for them. Equating Dragaeran sorcerers with Mages, however, still doesn't give me a well-defined source of power. The Dragaerans pull energy through their link with an artifact-level magic item, which basically gives them an inexhaustible supply of mana. I can't really have that.

I've tinkered with a number of options: Base mana off of Cunning, to represent craftiness through the handling and redistribution of ambient mana. Base it off of Perception, to represent the ability to see or notice the surrounding power in order to use it. Base it off of Luck, to represent the idea that ambient power levels can vary from location to location. I've even considered the option of reworking Shadowrun's system of magic, where spells don't take mana, but instead have a chance of draining you when you cast one. Fail too many "Drain" checks, and you're unconscious. Trying to balance that in a d20 system, though, would take a great deal more work than I'm willing to expend on just this one aspect right now, and still leaves Mages with a potentially inexhaustible supply of power.

I briefly considered making each Mage subclass (Illusionist, Transmuter, Evoker, etc.) have a different stat that it uses for power, but I think that would just make things far too complicated and confusing. And it still wouldn't answer what stat to have Mages use. At this point, I'm tempted to either stick with Constitution, or assign it to Perception, the latter mainly because I don't have a lot tied to that stat yet.

Suggestions?

A very Dark Knight indeed

Warning: Minor spoilers ahead. You've been warned.

I realize the belatedness of this posting in relation to the release of the movie itself. My wife and I weren't able to see it for a while, until a friend of ours very kindly offered to babysit for us, and afterwards I didn't feel capable of making any sort of coherent comments. I'm very glad we made the decision not to bring our 7 month old (he loved the latest Indiana Jones), not because the movie would have affected him, but because feeling and seeing our reactions would have.

I'm curious how it affected anyone who may be reading this. I don't think I've had a movie affect me like that since E.T. (I was very young, saw it in the theatre). I'm pretty sure I was shaking after Dark Knight ended, and it took me several hours before I could really process everything I'd just seen.

As if Heath Ledger's death wasn't tragic enough. Having seen the caliber of performance he was capable of giving, I have to wonder if he'll be regarded as the modern James Dean. You have to know that they wanted him back for a sequel, that so many scriptwriters just tore out their hair when they heard of his passing. My wife, even, would very much have looked forward to an introduction of Dr. Harley Quinn to play off of Ledger. It was an inspired performance, and not having him around to repeat it puts the character out of commission for at least two more films. Replacing him too soon won't sit right with the fan base.

I have to agree with a lot of the reviewers that the worst acting was on the part of the title character. Christian Bale makes a decent Bruce, but his Batman needs work. What was worst, I think, was the voice change. It sounded like he was out of breath and congested whenever he was speaking as Batman. I theorized that maybe there was some sort of voice modulator built into the suit, at the throat area so it was hidden, so that no one could use voice recognition technology to discover his identity, but the voice was the one aspect that jarred us out of the experience the most.

Some people expressed the view that the Joker character wasn't "funny" enough, that he didn't have a sense of humor, but I have to disagree. He thought everything was absolutely hilarious, and to those with a similar mindset (or one wide-angled enough to understand it), the humor was there. Dark, yes, and twisted, based on a skewed perception of the world and its relative truths, but still there. Also interesting were the various stories he told about his facial scars. It told the audience to be careful, not to believe anything this guy says. Something which was easy to forget, later on when he was in the hospital with Dent - that speech, like all his previous, was intended to manipulate.

The funniest line in the whole movie, though, was delivered by Freeman, in the scene where the accountant tries to blackmail Bruce Wayne. "Good luck with that." A family member was reminded of a line from Meet the Robinsons - "I just don't think this plan was thought through very well." Fox essentially told the accountant that his arms were way too short to box with God, without giving away a thing.

I'm always impressed with Gary Oldman, and this was no exception. He disappears into every character he portrays. You could look at Gordon's body language and tell that he was a cop. I'm still convinced that he should be first pick, in the event that a movie (or seventeen) based on Steven Brust's Jhereg series ever gets made.

Apparently, some people have expressed the hope that they bring back Two-Face. Again, an inspired performance, albeit one overshadowed by the tragedy surrounding the film. However, to pull such a stunt when the character was obviously killed would kill the credibility of the series as a whole. I understand the desire, especially since the villain they'd obviously intended to bring back (aside from the Scarecrow - a very neat little interlude there, which hinted at so much more) is out of commission, at least for a good while. Aaron Eckhart does a wonderful job in a difficult role, especially one with such a quick psychological turnabout. He makes both the before and after versions of Dent believable, as well as the turning point. The makeup and effects for Two-Face are fantastic in their realism, managing to be dark without being unnecessarily gory.

The family member I mentioned passed on rumors about the next film that include Angelina Jolie as Catwoman, and/or Johnny Depp as Riddler. We're both very excited about the latter possibility. He sees a serious portrayal of the Riddler as a classic serial killer, on the order of the Zodiac. The character doesn't need a question-mark-covered suit or a brass cane - just an elevated intellect and an ego that prompts him to taunt authorities with clues to his every move.

As for the first possibility, I have to admit some extreme hesitance and disagreement. Catwoman as a role seems impossibly difficult to take seriously. I'd be willing to give this crew a chance on it, but my belief in them will be severely strained if Jolie is given the part. I've seen her in a number of films, and quite frankly she seems to be picked for roles based primarily on her figure. I'm all for Catwoman being attractive, but A) I don't find Jolie attractive and B) a woman doesn't need to have a large bustline to inspire attraction. Quite frankly, I think a more slender figure would be perfectly in keeping with a character that draws its name from felines. Aesthetics aside, I imagine serious acrobatics would be easier with less up top, and I think if this team is serious about putting in Catwoman, there's going to be some major acrobatics involved. I'm thinking more along the lines of Mystique from the recent X-Men movies than the string of backflips from Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. Actually, Rebecca Romijn might not be too bad a choice...