Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zelda Themelin" data-source="post: 5771694" data-attributes="member: 167">I started to to lke D&D when I was playing Hack 1.0 (later Nethack). I was young girl then and I used to memorize letters and what monster they meant and thought what they would look like. Since I was only familiar with Finnish/Greek myth at the time it was lot of unknown. Then years later I visit roleplaying games shop because there used to be article related to roleplaying game at computer related magazine. I was 14 years old at the time and I had already gotten Acirema II, the photocopy version. I however wanted to see how that famious dungeons and dragons looked like. So finally got to the shop and found Monster Manual, with all the familiar names from Hack. That made me smile. They were out of dungeon master guide so I got oriental adventures instead (they had 3 book bargain offer), which was intriguing book.Vancian magic didn't bother me at all. Levels made perfect sense. However acirema II had used spell points, which I liked better and still do. I can come up with roleplaying excuses for fire and forget and certain number of spells/level but I don't like it. I have kinda gotten used to it. Gurps fantasy was very unfun, don't like spells as skills at all as presented (very hard/each one raided seperately).Best magic system was palladium/beyond the supernatural. 15 levels of spells you might be able to cast even higher ring with help (items, sacrifises). And spellpoint system.  Only spells weren't that many some were interesting though. There was just too few spells, AD&D, with help of dragon magizines did so much better.I used palladium magic system sometimes with otherwise D&D games. Though with D&D spell levels because I wanted to use the spells.I also played rolemaster. Most fun thing about that system is reading through crit tables. Spelllists... ok 50 or more spell-levels with usual variation of 1-3 spells in different spell-levels. I always saw them as waste of paper. Too heavy system for me to run, played it though.Liked the spellpoint/spell-adder items.Runequest had spellpoints and 3 different variation of magic. I  don't know if runequest was really low-magic, but there was very little spells to go around. You could do most basic things with them, so I kinda never missed high spell numbers of D&D.  Runequest combat was more fun than D&D imo. We only houseruled that you could have 1 attack and one dodge or parry action, instead of just 1 of those. Made combat more back and forth and interesting.Lot of story there.I despise 4th edition take on magic. I could play the game if someone would want to run it, but I rather play it as martial arts heroes or sci-fi psychic heroes game. It doesn't feel fantastic. You know, based on books I read. Vancian is not very fantastic either unless you count works of one writer. I often do it out of habit.But since remaining me maybe I again go for spellpoints. And everyone can play duel-class caster to be fair, because direct translation of spells to spellpoints if I also (as I often do) drop memorization from priests makes caster really powerful. I think best way to go in my games would give casters some signature magical attacks, ranged/touch which they can channel from hand/eyes/wand/staff anything that kinda suits the character. Then give them spellpoints but about the same amount psi characters get at 3.5D&D. Maybe less because it would be free zeroes, 1-9 costing said amount of points instead of retarded 3,5,7...  in said rules.  Sorceres are better at metamagic like feats and wizards are better at rituals and co-op casting. Sorcerers also get free channelling that basicly gives them abitity to burn spell points for magic dmg up to sorcerer's lv.  And so on...But it's so damn convinient to just use D&D magic as written. Then again everyone in my group loves spellpoints so maybe next time we go that route.</blockquote>

Verification