this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
200 points (96.7% liked)
RPGMemes
10350 readers
375 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have no trouble accepting that mana exists in quanta. What troubles me is the idea that mana clusters into meta-quanta like spell slots. Also that a spell like, say, Fireball, is totally unviable except with a specific meta-quantum of mana, at which point it does 8d6 damage.
Shouldn't it be a simple matter to cast a weaker Fireball with less mana, or a more powerful one with more? I get that you need magic to summon fire, and a certain amount to summon 8d6-worth. But all or nothing? Why shouldn't a 1st level slot summon 1d6 with a 5ft radius, a 2nd level slot 4d6 with a 10ft radius? One would imagine a gradient, even quantized, between Fire Bolt and Fireball.
Come to DCC, we have variable spells effects and weird lore
I appreciate the invitation, but I've already found my forever home. It's got variable spell effects, variable magic systems, and tools to build spells, and magic systems, from scratch.
You can do that. Using higher level spell slots deals more dice of damage.
A couple things from the way I understand magic in the universe, the example of fireball: some spells will come with a minimum quanta because in order to make that spell that spell you need to add mana (energy) to a minimum level to give it certain attribute(s). This is why you can always cast at higher level, using way more energy, but not less. There are other fire spells at a lower level, such as [Insert 1st level spell with fire attribute] but it lacks the explosive attribute. The explosive attribute requires way more energy than just creating flames just to acquire so a closer example would be more like, why can't I make it ice ball? Change the elemental attribute (much easier to change and lower costing. Probably just a restriction of game mechanics than world restriction, but potentially an issue with attribute matching)
So I regards to the difference between fireball and [Insert 1st level spell with fire attribute] level , you'd start off casting [Insert 1st level spell with fire attribute] and you can increase it's power until you may as well just spend that energy on the explosive attribute. Though if you didn't want that explosive attribute you still could cast [Insert 1st level spell with fire attribute] with the same energy as fireball. I'd also assume the value coefficient for spells changes as you scale and the more efficient use of high energy costs would be the high level spells. I.E. you get more value in damage from 5th lvl fireball than 5th level [Insert 1st level spell with fire attribute].
Another way to imagine it would be like summoning. I cast "summon frog". I get a frog. Why can I not get a smaller frog? Because this is the size of frogs. But if I add even more energy to it I can add a growth attribute to the spell, so when I cast summon Giant frog, I get a big boi frog. If I try to reduce it, I get a French delicacy rather than a summoned frog. Alternatively I could do, summon tadpole and get something different, and weaker, but still a frog-ish attribute
Edited for clarity, removed cantrip.
As an aside, the last 5e character I played before switching was an Order of Scribes wizard, which can do exactly that.
You can't though, Firebolt is a cantrip, you can't upcast cantrips, they just get more powerful as you level up. They don't even use spell slots, it's just a different empowering mechanic entirely. Guess what though, what you've described is how it works in GURPS.
Yes yes, firebolt is a cantrip so use any first level spell for this example instead. I was just trying to provide something off memory for people to use
Can trips are kinda their own thing