Magic as a D&D Edition Setting

[zugschef]

So "Magic as a D&D Setting" is off the table?

[Almaz]

The original proposal, to my mind, was never "what if we hacked Magic in to a D&D system that currently exists" but rather "what if they just used Magic as their basis for D&D?" Accordingly, I would prefer to approach design from that framework - no attempt to emulate the old Greyhawkian mode except where coincidental. "Yes" to having more levels than strictly necessary "because D&D" for instance, but "no" to having precisely 20 playable levels on game release.

[Red_Rob]

Okay, I'll let you in on a little secret:

Design by way of a roleplaying forum community doesn't work.

Oh, it's a fine way to generate ideas and thrash out particular elements of a system, but every time a successful project has been finished here it has been because someone has basically decided they want to create something, and then used the forum to hash out concepts or canvas opinion on a certain topic. But you need a final decision maker or else you get bogged down in arguments over minutiae, like class names, rather than deciding on important things like how the power level is going to scale or how your adventure dynamic is supposed to work. Because on a forum people are going to have radically different ideas about that sort of thing that will bring the project to a crashing halt sooner or later.

So Magic as a D&D Edition is still on the table as long as the fact that you or anyone else could still write it up using as many or as few of the suggestions from this thread as you liked is still true. Which is as close as it ever has been to existing.

Now, if you meant "Does the fact D&D goes to 20 levels whilst Magic goes to about 10 CMC for playable races mean that you couldn't make Magic fit as a D20 system game" I think that is obviously incorrect. You could trivially just roll about two levels worth of advancement into a Magic "level" and use the system pretty much unaltered if you wanted, for example. But if you are planning to design all new monsters (which would be a prerequisite I think) then you can just make the game be 10 levels long and have the monsters match the player power level. Nothing particularly stops you from using hit points and saves and the rest of the D20 system as a resolution mechanic just because you are monkeying with the number of levels.

[Almaz]

So Magic as a D&D Edition is still on the table as long as the fact that you or anyone else could still write it up using as many or as few of the suggestions from this thread as you liked is still true. Which is as close as it ever has been to existing.

This is admittedly true, which is why I noted it as a personal preference of how to approach things.

This is also why I've repeatedly nudged the discussion in various directions, like attempting to herd people away from aforementioned minutiae.

[Almaz]

Other topics of discussion: Races. People choose both them _and_ classes.

What do? Do we want to write up active powers for races, or make them merely parameter modifiers, leave it fluid, or wot?

[Red_Rob]

The thing with races is you don't want to end up going down the route of small, sneaky goblins and big strong orcs, because that just leads to certain races being optimal for certain classes. Really you want to try to make your race provide some bonus or ability that doesn't directly feed into one class, but combo's with most or all of the classes to some effect. Of course, saying that is a lot easier than writing the rules to suit

[ishy]

Can't you just do races are the same mechanically but look different and have different cultures etc?

[Almaz]

Can't you just do races are the same mechanically but look different and have different cultures etc?

I wouldn't mind that, actually.

What I was starting to think of was that Races are associated with colors and get a passive or non-combat (so no resource system) color power particular to their kind. And you didn't actually have to play that color, it just was common (e.g. you could be a Dwarf and then play a Ranger instead of a Dragoon).

[zugschef]

This sounds very WoW-like which is not necessarily a bad thing (as I've said, less complexity could be a positive). If the goal is to avoid having obvious race/class combinations this is probably the only way to go. As long as races give at least some small circumstantial bonuses or minor abilities, this should work well enough.

[deaddmwalking]

If race gives you access to a color (ie, all dwarves get access to red) and class gives you access to a color (ie, all paladins get access to white), race/class gives you a good chance to have mutli-color from the beginning.

A dwarf dragoon might get more access to their red abilities (as a result of having two sources of red mana - class and race); a dwarf paladin would have a potentially broader swath of abilities (having access to both red and white effects).

Since resource management doesn't seem to have been nailed down, I'm not sure what resource access race should include; but it seems that relating it to color withut binding it to certain colors is most in line with the cards.

Dwarf Paladins should be a thing in a Magic:TheRPG even if it's not represented in the cards. But an incentive for most dwarves to choose red classes also makes sense.

[zugschef]

I think I'll start with some races and possible color affinities. Obviously problematic are flying races (Angels, Aviens, Faeries), lycanthropes (Werewolves), marine races (Cephalids, Merfolk) and undead (Vampires, Zombies). It's probably best to install lycanthropes and undead as templates (and maybe classes). There may be just Zombies but there are also Dwarf, Nantuko, etc. Zombies. As for the marine races, I'd drop them. As much as it hurts to drop Merfolk, I think it's not worth it. I'm not sure the same is true for the flyers, though.

Race	W	U	B	R	G		3+	4+
Angel	X	O	X	X	O		X	O
Assfolk (Noggles)	O	X	O	X	O		O	O
Birdfolk (Aven)	X	X	O	O	O		O	O
Catfolk	X	O	O	X	X		X	O
Centaur	X	O	O	X	X		X	O
Dwarves	X	X	O	X	O		X	O
Elephantfolk (Loxodon)	X	O	O	O	X		O	O
Eumidian	O	O	X	X	X		X	O
Elves	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
Faeries	X	X	X	O	X		X	X
Foxfolk (Kitsune)	X	O	O	O	O		O	O
Goblins	X	O	X	X	X		X	X
Hags	X	X	X	O	X		X	X
Humans	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
Imp	O	X	X	X	O		O	O
Kithkin	X	X	O	X	X		X	X
Kor	X	X	X	O	O		X	O
Kraul	O	O	O	O	X		O	O
Lizardfolk (Viashino)	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
Mantisfolk (Nantuko)	O	O	O	O	X		O	O
Merfolk	O	X	O	O	O		O	O
Minotaur	X	X	O	X	X		X	X
Moonfolk (Soratami)	O	X	O	O	O		O	O
Octopusfolk (Cephalides)	O	X	O	O	O		O	O
Orcs	O	O	X	X	X		X	O
Ratfolk (Nezumi)	O	O	X	O	O		O	O
Rhinofolk (Rhox)	X	O	O	O	X		O	O
Snakefolk (Orochi)	O	X	X	O	X		X	O
Vampires	X	X	X	X	O		X	X
Vedalken	X	X	O	O	O		O	O
Werewolves	O	O	X	X	X		X	O
Zombies	O	X	X	X	X		X	X
Specific	1	3	1	0	2		5	3
Total	16	16	15	15	16		20	10

Explanation: 4+; problematic; single color race

Something I did not include in this list is that Humans (and others) have subtypes, too. Keldons, for instance, seem to be exclusively red while the Moriok are exclusively black.

Also, I'm not sure how many races the core package should include. We obviously want to avoid single color specific races (as Frank said, you want stuff to be relevant to as much players as possible).

[ishy]

So if you play a class that gives you blue abilities that means your race shouldn't play a 'blue race', because it would only give you access to blue instead of blue + other colour.
Fuck that.

[deaddmwalking]

So if you play a class that gives you blue abilities that means your race shouldn't play a 'blue race', because it would only give you access to blue instead of blue + other colour.
Fuck that.

I don't know that it necessarily follows.

Again, without understanding the resource paradigm, having an ability that requires '2 blue' would be available to a mermaid blue wizard; it would not be available to a Bengalish (white race) blue wizard.

Effectively, choosing a race that complements your class would get you certain powers faster than a class/race combination from differing colors.

Though again, without a resource management scheme, this is all speculation on my part.

[Sigil]

If some abilities are extra effective against creatures of a given color, being double colored could cause you to be weak to more attacks than a single colored character.

[Username17]

I think the thing to do with the races is to give them bonus lists of skills and abilities you can take that are not part of the standard lists for the color most associated with them. So being Red gives you access to things like Intimidate and Leadership, but being a Goblin gives you access to things like Lockpicking and Sleight of Hand. Being a Red Goblin gives you an objectively longer list of things to select from than being a Blue Goblin does.

Now your list of selectables would still be longer than the number of selections you could make, so it would still be perfectly possible to play a Blue Goblin if you wanted to.

-Username17

[zugschef]

Let's take Goblins as an example. They exist in all colors but Blue, but are obviously mostly Red. Would you tie them to four colors or only Red? And if the latter is true, should all races only have one "favored color"?

[Red_Rob]

Goblins can be blue as one component of multicolour and can even be played in monoblue decks. But it is definitely true that the races in MTG are associated with certain colours. This is something I struggled with earlier. The thing is, you don't want to say "You can play any colour as a Goblin, but if you don't play Red you will fucking suck" because that just makes it a non-option and a newbie trap. So if you want to mechanically represent "Goblins are Red" you either make the 'favoured colour' something really minor or you just say all Goblins are Red and be done with it.

Personally I was pretty swayed by Frank's argument that what is typical for your race has no bearing whatsoever on how your specific character functions. If you want to play a Goblin Cleric that was raised by Humans and has embraced White magic, or a Vedalken outcast who was shunned for his violent outbursts and became a Red Berserker then you should be able to. People love to play out-of-type characters in RPG's, hell the Drizzt/Angel 'bad race gone good' is like the second most common character archetype. So just accept that and explain that whilst most Goblins are Red, that this is due to their mindset and upbringing and nothing else.

[deaddmwalking]

If you want to play a Goblin Cleric that was raised by Humans and has embraced White magic, or a Vedalken outcast who was shunned for his violent outbursts and became a Red Berserker then you should be able to. People love to play out-of-type characters in RPG's, hell the Drizzt/Angel 'bad race gone good' is like the second most common character archetype. So just accept that and explain that whilst most Goblins are Red, that this is due to their mindset and upbringing and nothing else.

The thing is, if you think most goblins should be red, but there's no benefit to it, you'll instead find an even distribution over all of the colors.

In an RPG, that's not necessarily a problem, but it doesn't accurately reflect the source material.

[Username17]

The thing is, if you think most goblins should be red, but there's no benefit to it, you'll instead find an even distribution over all of the colors.

In an RPG, that's not necessarily a problem, but it doesn't accurately reflect the source material.

In an RPG, you can declare that most Goblins are Red by declaring that most Goblins are Red. Most humans are farmers, but that doesn't mean that a player character human has to be incentivized to be one.

-Username17

[zugschef]

So being Red gives you access to things like Intimidate and Leadership, but being a Goblin gives you access to things like Lockpicking and Sleight of Hand. Being a Red Goblin gives you an objectively longer list of things to select from than being a Blue Goblin does.

This still confuses me. Do you mean that a Goblin Spy does not get access to the Goblin skills and abilities, but to the Blue ones only, while a Red Goblin gets access to Goblin and Red skills and abilities? If not, why does a Red Goblin select from a longer list?

[DragonChild]

So being Red gives you access to things like Intimidate and Leadership, but being a Goblin gives you access to things like Lockpicking and Sleight of Hand. Being a Red Goblin gives you an objectively longer list of things to select from than being a Blue Goblin does.

This still confuses me. Do you mean that a Goblin Spy does not get access to the Goblin skills and abilities, but to the Blue ones only, while a Red Goblin gets access to Goblin and Red skills and abilities? If not, why does a Red Goblin select from a longer list?

Put it in D&D terms. Imagine that being a Dwarf gave you Knowledge: Engineering as a class skill. That's technically a bonus for clerics and fighters, who don't get that skill, and technically not a bonus for wizards, who DO get that skill, but it's not a big enough one that you're going to be upset as a wizard, and both taking and not taking the skill is valid, as you're also giving up another skill for it.

[ishy]

If you're going to have angels they probably get some kind of flight ability.
Thus other races need something as well.

But to see how powerful abilities are, you've to do create monsters / pcs / advancement first. So I'd say, write down truly essential special things races need to have (like say fly) and shelve them for now.

[zugschef]

So being Red gives you access to things like Intimidate and Leadership, but being a Goblin gives you access to things like Lockpicking and Sleight of Hand. Being a Red Goblin gives you an objectively longer list of things to select from than being a Blue Goblin does.

This still confuses me. Do you mean that a Goblin Spy does not get access to the Goblin skills and abilities, but to the Blue ones only, while a Red Goblin gets access to Goblin and Red skills and abilities? If not, why does a Red Goblin select from a longer list?

Put it in D&D terms. Imagine that being a Dwarf gave you Knowledge: Engineering as a class skill. That's technically a bonus for clerics and fighters, who don't get that skill, and technically not a bonus for wizards, who DO get that skill, but it's not a big enough one that you're going to be upset as a wizard, and both taking and not taking the skill is valid, as you're also giving up another skill for it.

Ahhh... ok, you may get redundant abilities and skills. I get it now. Thank you. So that means that races should have only one favored color, right?

[edit] Some races cry for at least two favored colors, though. But more than that would make the term "favored color" sound absurd when more than half, 3/5 to be precise, are favored.

[Username17]

This still confuses me. Do you mean that a Goblin Spy does not get access to the Goblin skills and abilities, but to the Blue ones only, while a Red Goblin gets access to Goblin and Red skills and abilities? If not, why does a Red Goblin select from a longer list?

Put it in D&D terms. Imagine that being a Dwarf gave you Knowledge: Engineering as a class skill. That's technically a bonus for clerics and fighters, who don't get that skill, and technically not a bonus for wizards, who DO get that skill, but it's not a big enough one that you're going to be upset as a wizard, and both taking and not taking the skill is valid, as you're also giving up another skill for it.

Ahhh... ok, you may get redundant abilities and skills. I get it now. Thank you. So that means that races should have only one favored color, right?

[edit] Some races cry for at least two favored colors, though. But more than that would make the term "favored color" sound absurd when more than half, 3/5 to be precise, are favored.

A race's "favored color" means several things. First of all, we have the fact that in the world the majority of Elves are Green. That is a world building issue entirely, where you simply fiat that most of the Elves are Green.

Secondly, while you don't want to make being a Green Elf mandatory, you want to make it possible. So you want to make sure that being Green and being an Elf has at least minimal synergy. And that basically just means that there shouldn't be any overlap between the free class skills you get for being Green and the free class skills you get for being an Elf.

-Username17

[zugschef]

Secondly, while you don't want to make being a Green Elf mandatory, you want to make it possible. So you want to make sure that being Green and being an Elf has at least minimal synergy. And that basically just means that there shouldn't be any overlap between the free class skills you get for being Green and the free class skills you get for being an Elf.

Right.

Now which races should be in the core package? Leaving out arial and marine races, the obvious choices are:

• Humans (W, U, B, R, G),
• Elves (G),
• Dwarves (R)
  and
• Goblins (R).

Additionally, I'd include

• Kor (W, U, B),
• Kithkin (W),
• Vedalken (U)
  and
• Catfolk (W, G) on top of that.

This way only Black lacks a marquee creature type, which could only be avoided by including Demons or Undead.