Is it me, or does Magic in DnD not make sense?

How does magic work in DnD? I think just from looking at the mechanics of how magic works for different classes, the way in which magic works in the fiction of DnD is very unclear. In fact, I think it’s impossible to come to any meaningful conclusions about how magic works as a whole just from looking at the mechanics, which, let’s face it, is how most of us interact with DnD lore.

Magic seems to draw from a certain pool of magical energy (spell slots), that replenish each day, except for warlocks. Spells exist, and are often written down (wizards and spell scrolls), but most spell casters don’t bother with having them in a book. Some classes just know a limited number of spells innately (Warlocks, Bards and Sorcerers), but then others seem to know huge great lists of spells, but can only prepare and therefore cast a limited number at a time (Wizards, Clerics and Druids). I could go on, I’ve not even started on semi-spell casters yet.

I think this confusion comes about partially because of the history of DnD. DnD was not created whole cloth at its inception. It has built up over decades, with various different editions, created by different people, drawing inspiration from different source materials. The idea of ‘prepared’ spells harkens back to the magic system created by Jack Vance in the Dying Earth books, in which in order to cast a spell you had to have prepared it, and once you cast that spell, it left your brain and you couldn’t cast it again until your prepared it again. Spellcasting in early DnD worked like this. This system has since gone out of the game, as it was probably seen as too weird, but we can still see the effects of it in how things like spell scrolls work.

Maybe this whole question doesn’t really matter. Ultimately, if you can read and understand how spellcasting works mechanically, then does it really matter how the different classes interact with each other? Maybe not. Maybe my own interest in it comes from my interest in fantasy novels, particularly epic fantasy series in which world-building is a key part, and in which magic systems often take up an awful lot of page space.

But then again, I know a lot of players who actively avoid spellcasting classes (especially full casters), because they’re seen as too complicated. I know a lot of people who actively avoid DnD and games like it because they think the whole thing is too complicated. This is not a problem. DnD is complicated, and I think there is a virtue in complexity, as it can often aid roleplay and character decisions, as it provides a framework for the game you’re playing. Plus using the rules to do something really interesting or surprising, that wouldn’t be possible without those mechanics, or that you wouldn’t have thought of without the mechanics as a guide, is really fun.

You are much more likely to have experiences like that if you are playing a spell-caster because there are more options. As I have talked about before. Wizards are quadratic, fighters are linear. Playing spellcasters is really fun, and I think it could be made to be just as fun (even more-so) by streamlining the design of magic in the game.

I am a big fan of systemic design. I think if something works one way for one class, then it should work the same way for all classes. I think it should be possible to break down the design of the game and see a clear organised system in place. I think, for example, that all classes should have a comparable split between things they can do as bonus actions, actions and reactions. I think all classes should have a comparable split between what they can get back on a short or a long rest. That’s not to say that classes should look identical, just that there should be a more clear system in place behind them. I think I would have liked 4th edition.

So how would I design spellcasters?

As far as I can see there are 4 different ways that spellcasting work in DnD:

• Known Spells - You know a number of spells per level. This is how Bards, Sorcerers and all of the semi-casters except Paladins work.

• Prepared Spells - You know all the spells in your spell list, but can only cast ones you have prepared. You can prepare a number of spells per day equal to you spellcasting ability modifier and class level. This is how Druids, Clerics and Paladins work.

• Wizards - as above, except that the spells you know is limited to what is in your spell book, which you can add to as you find spells in the world, and as you level up

• Warlocks - like the first one, except that you get barely any spell slots and they come back after a short rest, rather than a long rest like everyone else. Also you always cast spells at your highest level.

What is going on with Warlocks? I love the flavour of Warlocks, but their design is just strange. Why have a magic system based around spells you can cast per day at different power levels, then undermine it by making a class that breaks this system completely? This is poor design in my book, as it adds unnecessary complexity.

Likewise Wizards. This is an odd one, as I think most players don’t really bother with the whole spellbook thing, even though narratively, I think it’s really interesting. I think it shows that Wizards are the original spellcaster, and I think all spellcasting used to work something like this, with a spell book, and with the Vancian system, described above. It’s interesting, but I think unless all (or at least more) magic worked that way, I think it just adds more complexity to the game, without really adding enough narratively to justify the extra work.

So that leaves us with the first two. I think having two different systems is fine. For full casters, the first system is for charisma-based classes like Sorcerers, Bards and (I guess) Warlocks, so it makes sense that magic is more innate than learned, hence the limit on the number spells you know. Having these limitations is also nice for newer players, as it makes spell casting easier to learn.

The problem comes when you look at the semi-casters. All of them work this way part from the only charisma based semi-caster, the Paladin. This is unsystematic. I think it makes a certain amount of sense when you bear in mind the point above about simplicity. If you’re only dabbling in spell casting, then easier is better, but if a Paladin is half a cleric, a ranger is half a druid, and an artificer is half a Wizard, then their spell casting should work like that. Arcane Tricksters and Edrich Knights I can live with, given that they’re semi-semi-casters, but given their limited spell lists, why not just let them do prepared spells.

Incidentally I would make Warlocks semi-casters, like Rangers, Paladins and Artificers, using known spells, as they’re charisma-based, with an upgrade to their invocations to make up for the slower spell progression.

The prepared spells system makes some sense as well, as it is for classes that have obtained their spells through study, and is based in either Wisdom or Intelligence. Maybe they know these spells because they own a spell book, or because they have studied extensively and know the spells by heart, but need to spend time each day bringing a select number to their mind that they can actually use.

Having actual mechanics for spellbooks is pretty cool, but I think ultimately redundant. In order to make Wizards more comparable, then, I would trim the standard Wizard spell list, as this is currently longer than the Druid or Cleric one, and put some spells into additional lists for certain subclasses based on the spell type. Spells like Raise Dead or Scrying are so evocative of a certain type of wizard, that I think only wizards who have focused on that particular type of magic should have access to them, much as some spells are only available to clerics with a certain subclass.

So, there’s my pitch for spellcasting for DnD 6e! I have some other ideas about ways in which I would change the design of DnD, like making low level play less swingy, and high level play less of a slog, but that is a topic for another blog post.