Tattoo Magic

[Sir Brennen]

For some reason, the idea of "tattoo magic", whatever the actual base mechanic, has always been an intriguing idea to me. There's several feats and prestige classes using the idea from various publications, and I plan on sifting through them to see which I think are suitable for my campaign.

Something else struck me recently about the concept - this would be an excellent "fluff" rationale behind the fire-and-forget method of spellcasting.

Instead of wizards actually memorizing spells each day, (and inexplicably "forgetting" them), what if they actually scribe their spells on their skin each day as a tattoo? When each spell is cast, it disappears from their body. Daily spells would actually function more like scrolls this way, and would be the reason why wizards get Scribe Scroll as an automatic feat at first level.

I'm picturing something like Indian Henna body art, mostly on the face and hands. I'm not really going for a lot of mechanical changes with this idea, more for flavor. So can anyone see any pitfalls to the idea?

Some of the things I can see that need to be taken into account:

Erase:: The description says "Erase removes writings of either magical or mundane nature from a scroll or from one or two pages of paper, parchment, or similar surfaces." Writings on the skin could be assumed to be excluded, so no change there. (Or, Erase could still work as described, requiring a touch attack, and a caster-level check vs. the spell tattoo's DC.)

Sorcerers:: The fact that sorcerer's wouldn't require these tattoos is one of the reasons they are viewed with suspicion (already the case in my world), as they are not as easily identifiable.

Divine Casters: Continue to function as described, as they aren't "forgetting" spells, they are using up what was granted to them for the day. This helps distinguish them from arcane casters further.

Metamagic Feats: These now require a permanent tattoo when the feat is taken, regardless of the spellcaster's class. Meta-magic tattoos are normally placed on the chest or back. Some casters go shirtless to show these tattoos off, while others keep them hidden.

Spellcraft: The same uses of this skill with regard to scrolls apply to spell tattoos, but since tattoos are more unique to each wizard, add +5 to the DCs. This allows PCs the possibility to learn spells from fallen foes without having to find a spell book, but only those not already cast.

Oh, and of course the tattoos would be water-proof

Any other ideas/comments are welcome.

 

[Stormborn]

This is interesting, although there is still the question of the spell book. While spells prepared would be skin art, what would spells known be? Wizards would still likely need a book somewhere to have a list of all they know.

Would this eliminate the need for material components as we know them? Or rather, the components would be needed when the glyph was drawn, but not when the spell was cast. Components might be special inks rather than the things listed in the PHB. In my campaigns this wouldn't be an issue, but it might for some people. It might also make replacing spell components a little more tricky. It could also allow for some new magic/alchemical items, like special inks that allow metamagic feats to apply to a spell by spending gp for enhanced components.

Would higher level spells take up more space on the body, like they do in a spell book? If so would this give away what kind of spells a wizard has prepared or at least how many he has left? IOW, could the party make a Kn(aracan) or Spellcraft or even Spot roll to determine how many spells a spell caster has left? Issues of clothing apply, of course.

That might also explain why wizards don't wear armor. Its more than just being nonprofficent, it prevents them from accessing their spells by covering them up. Might make arcan spell failure make more sense. Somatic components might require touching the tatoo.

Could high level spells applied in obvious places add to intimidate checks? Or subtract from diplomacy, depending on the targets knowledge of such things?

Just stuff to think about.

 

[Nifft]

I like this idea. Lots of flavor potential.

One suggestion: do NOT make the tattoos water-proof. Instead, allow the 1st level spell "Protection from Elements" to literally repel water. Villager: "This is why we dunk witches!"

I'd like to see similar mechanics for other spellcasting classes. For example, a Cleric could write out chits (prayers on rolled up scraps of paper), each of which is effectively a spell. They'd be vulnerable to fire and water.

A Druid might make fetish bundles of bones, berries & other material components. Vulnerable to fire but not water.

A Sorcerer or Bard would truely be free of (potentially annoying) mechanical restrictions. This would, IMHO, balance them as-written with the rest of the spellcasters.

-- N

 

[Sir Brennen]

Thanks Stormborn. This is exactly the sort of feedback I was looking for.

Spellbooks - yes, I envision spellbooks existing. Now a big part of what the written spell would contain would be instruction on how to draw the tattoo. The tattoos vanish when cast, so the wizard isn't a walking spellbook, tattooed with every spell he's ever come across.

Material Components - could be kept as is, though mixing them in the initial ink or as special inks sounds logical too. (Bat guano tattoos, ugh!) The spell component variant for Uneathed Arcana (allowing metamagic without the feats) could be used as is, the component "focusing" the spell energy when it's released from the tattoo. Rare inks made from such components would be a workable option, too. Again, the change is more flavorful than mechanical - the cost and rarity of normal and variant components would stay the same.

Spell Spaces - rather than higher level spells taking up more space, they could just be a more complex tattoo. However, the instructions to create these more complex designs take up more space in a spellbook, so that would remain unchanged.

As for gaining info about a wizard by "reading" his tats, I would allow a DC 20 SpellCraft Check to figure out the highest level spell tattoo, applying all the mods for Spot as well (distance, distraction). If you already know the approximate level of a wizard, another check could give you a rough percent of how many spells he has left (by quarters, maybe.) Might be a reason wizards wear cowls and long-sleeved robes (that can be pushed out of the way to cast.)

To really figure out exactly what the specific tattoos are, use the rules for deciphering arcane writings in the PHB, but this would require the same level of close-up contact as trying to read an entire newspaper article printed in small type in circles around someone's arm.

Intimidate, Diplomacy, etc.- I would say this would be entirely up to the DM, based on general attitude towards wizards in the campaign. Even under the current rules, there's no mechanic to alter a wiz's Intimidate check even if people know he can cast Maximized Fireball.

Also, all good thoughts on armor and somatic components.

 

[DreamChaser]

i like the idea of tattoo magic too but I actually use it as a mechanic for sorcerers. They take the arcane formulae/runes that wizards prepare (not memorize, let's get with the 3.x lingo) and enscribe them upon themselves to harness the powers as often as they can stand.

DC

 

[Kerrick]

We did something like this back in the early days of 3.0 - it used the sorcerer mechanic; he tattooed spells on his skin, and they vanished when cast (but he could also "overcast" - cast a spell that had faded, but run a chance of losing it entirely and having to relearn it). They come back automatically when he prepares spells. Instead of Scribe Scroll, it was Scribe Tattoo.

I like the rules for gaining info on the tattoos and such - very nice.

 

[Markustay]

I like this idea alot, but you should make the tats larger per spell level. The tattoos could be runic in nature, appearing like Chinese glyphs or tribal markings. A 1st level spell could probably fit on a finger. 3rd or 4th level might take part on an arm, with higher levels taking larger sections of body. A ninth lev. spell might require an entire chest, back, or leg, and others would be able to judge a mage's power level by the amount of body covered if he were exposed. Ray bradbury's Illustrated man would be a potent adversary indeed!

This would work especially well on a world where magic was veiwed with suspicion, or at least one kingdom/realm. Imagine trying to hide all your body art while running around a fantasy version of the holy Roman Empire. The inquisition/witch hunters would definately be into dunking like Nifft suggested.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I like this idea alot, but you should make the tats larger per spell level. The tattoos could be runic in nature, appearing like Chinese glyphs or tribal markings. A 1st level spell could probably fit on a finger. 3rd or 4th level might take part on an arm, with higher levels taking larger sections of body. A ninth lev. spell might require an entire chest, back, or leg, and others would be able to judge a mage's power level by the amount of body covered if he were exposed.

Hmmm... perhaps, but the method of determining the amount of body space covered should definitely be kept simple. Some people will go down the path of wanting to know exactly how much space each spell slot takes up, which I think is probably the wrong approach. Maybe simply adding to the Wizard class description the cumulative areas tattoos take up whenever they gain a new spell level would work. On odd-numbered levels, the tats adorn the right side of the body; on even levels, same spot on the left. For example:

Fingers
Hand
Forearm
Upper Arm
Shoulder
Chest
Back
Stomach
Face

However, this means that just about anybody could tell how powerful a wizard is just by looking. Not sure I really like that. By making tats more complex rather than larger, it requires a real student of the arcane arts to tell exactly what spell-power level they're looking at.

Of course, nothing to stop a 1st lvl wizard from putting fake spell tats on his face to really freak out your fighters

Also, I like Stormborn's idea of somatic components requiring touching the tattoo, which means they would have to be kept accessible. This is why I was thinking of keeping the tats on hands, forearms and face. You could still use other areas, too, and that might explain the scantily clad wizard stereotype often depicted in less "historical" fantasy. Dropping a robe to get at some of these should be a free action.

"Watch out! He's going to cast Meteor Swarm!"
"Nah, I just had an itch on my back."

I'm glad people seem to like this idea. Making it a feature of sorcerers instead is also a good, flavorful suggestion. For my own campaign, however, having sorcerers not require tattoos is what makes them more of an unknown wildcard, and is another example of just how innate magic is for them.

 

[pntbllr]

Would this make a wizard 's spellbook something akin to a flash book like in a tattoo shop?

 

[Aus_Snow]

There's several feats and prestige classes using the idea from various publications, and I plan on sifting through them to see which I think are suitable for my campaign.

I'm sure I have access to some of them, but what are those sources, anyway? (I have far too many books and pdf's, it seems). :\

I really like the idea too, by the way. After reading this, I'm interested in implementing something along these lines, for at least one (upcoming) campaign.

Any other caster types you'd be thinking of modifying in this way, flavour-wise? Like, any of the Oriental Adventures classes, for instance?