How is D&D magic Karmic?

[Jack Aidley]

I hope this is the right place for this.

In this article, Ron states that:

AD&D uses Karma for magic and Fortune for combat.

I don't see why D&D magic is considered Karmic. You still roll (that's fortune, right?) for how much damage the spell does, or whether it takes effect. Yes, you pick which spells you memorise, and you don't have to roll to try and cast the spell (unless you're hit while casting), but you don't have to roll to draw your sword, or attempt to attack with it either. So how is magic different? Why is it considered Karmic?

[Shreyas Sampat]

I think the point is that casting a spell is functionally identical to attacking someone.  But when you're spellcasting, there isn't any chance that you'll 'miss', the way that you often do with weapons.

Each has Fortune-governed effect, but that's a different cupcake.

[Valamir]

Quite so.

Contrast:

"I attack"
"Ok make a to-hit roll"

with

"I cast Fireball"
"Ok cross it off".

The first one relies on Fortune in the form of the to-hit roll.
The second relies on Karma; first the level of the spell is compared to the casters level (via the chart) to determine if the character is in fact high enough level to cast.  Then the memorized spell list is consulted to determine if the "memorized" toggle is on.

[Jeph]

Would DnD3e magic be considered Karmic, with the additions of Spell Resistance and Saving Throw? It seems to me that only a rare few spells, many of which are considered "Broken" when compared to other spells of their level, still operate off of Karma alone (the vaunted Magic Missile for example).

(Wait, did they have those things in ADnD? Didn't play, then . . .)

[Jack Aidley]

But, Valamir, you're missing part of the sequence off spell-casting

"I cast fireball"
"Ok, cross it off - I'll just roll to save."

How is the target rolling to save any different from the attacker rolling to hit? The effect of a save is the same as the effect of a miss, it's just varies who rolls the dice. As to memorisation, how is that any different to having equipment or not?

Jeph - They work pretty much the same in 3rd Ed, and in AD&D (2nd Ed), it's just that the system has been streamlined in 3rd.

[Shreyas Sampat]

I would argue (to set context, I'm talking about 2nd and 3rd editions; I don't know the earlier ones) that the saving throw doesn't have an analogue in the baseline combat system - the closest you get is probably the Deflect Arrows feat and its family.

In IIEE terms, the systems differ at the Execution level - spells are always Executed, while damaging attacks are not.  Then both are again Karma/Fortune at the Effect level - with damage rolls, saving throws, and the like.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

The baseline problem with the passage that was quoted is that it doesn't specify what I mean by "AD&D."

I'm referring to the AD&D that I played back in high school, which is to say, the first round of hardback books published in the late 1970s. In that game, you merely announce "I cast Sleep," and a bunch of opponents simply drop in their tracks. No roll was involved whatsoever, except perhaps to see how many you got. Some spells required Saving Rolls, yes, but many did not. If you had the components, and if you had the spell in your head, it goes off when you say so. It's based on a numerical resource - the number of spells memorized, of which type, and that's that.

The Karma aspect of all this comes from which spell you're permitted to cast based on character level and which creatures the spell can affect, based on monster level. The various Fortune elements (Saving Rolls) and Drama elements (various situational details) strike me as secondary to these.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Aidley]

Thank you, Ron. I feel I understand Fortune, Karma and Drama once more.