That Magic Feeling

[Iron Sky]

For my 4E game, since most of the powers feel like magic anyway, I just used "anime magic." In lots of anime, people just have supernatural abilities with no explanation for why. They just do really cool stuff when it's appropriate.

So, I just told the players to reflavor their powers however they want as long as it doesn't change the mechanics of the power. NPCs and monsters do likewise. "Magic user" would draw questioning glances in my game world, except in a few rare societies that define the world through a particularly arcane lens.

 

[rounser]

I think it would be safe to say that the Warlock was the most beloved new(it did exist before, but it was hard to find) class 3E introduced

Where are the rules for the 2E warlock?

 

[Oni]

Where are the rules for the 2E warlock?

Didn't Spells and Magic have an alternate casting system for witches and warlocks.

 

[WayneLigon]

If you were redesigning magic in D&D what would your basic design principles be? What defines that magic feeling for you?

I'd like for it to feel more like a learning experience. You can't cast Greater Magic Weapon if you never learned it's chain of prerequisites. I can justify the 'each spell is an island' approach, but I hate having to do it.

Having some sort of skill system/power system prevents the mage from being the swiss army knife he is now. It's quite possible - especially if you have the gold or you've been lucky in retrieveing enemy spell books - to learn every spell of a particular level. With a skill system, you're always going to have to emphasize one area to the detriment of another.

On the other hand, my 'definition of magic' has a healthy component of 'being able to pull a rabbit out of your hat'. I like the Blue Rose/True20 Powers system for just that reason. If you start off as an arcane type, you can always spend a hero point to get access for a scene or round to any spell/power, period, even if you don't know it. I like that spontaneous ability to call on deeper powers and get something you normally are incapable of; the fact that hero points are rare means you don't do it all the time, or blow off your best attack right away.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

a) formulaic (i.e. not freeform built)
b) specialised (no fire spell that can produce flaming rays, explosions and warm you - just have your scorching ray, fireball and so on)
c) Somewhat quirky or odd in name or appearance, at least occasionally.

That about sums it up for me, as well.

I haven't played a 4e wizard yet, but from reading the rules, I'd say it fits these qualifications nicely.

 

[Runestar]

I would say that vancian casting is fine so long as players don't try to abuse it (eg: spam all their spells in 1 combat and then expect the DM to let them rest for the day).

I have had wizards who basically just cast 1 or 2 long-duration battlefield control spells, then spend the remainder of combat filing their nails, not because they feel obliged to conserve their spells, but because they see little/no need to casting more, not when the outcome is already more or less assured.

Conversely, I disagree with the idea of a skill-based casting system. If it is anything I learnt with the truenamer from ToM, it is that it is virtually impossible to come up with a 1-size-fits-all skill-DC approach in DnD, not when there are too many variables and options to keep track of and take into account. If I set the DC intentionally low to make allowance for non-min/maxers, optimized wizards will have little/no problems meeting those DCs at all. On the flip side, ratchet up the DCs to match optimizers (just see the ridiculous DCs for the truenamer), and those who don't optimize find themselves unable to make those checks reliably.

I concede that vancian casting is not without its flaws. But I feel that the pros still outweigh the cons. Even UA variants such as spell-points and recharge are not without severe flaws/loopholes of their own. So personally, I would still stick with vancian, if only because I find the alternatives far worse!

 

[Nebulous]

While the intention was good and the end effect balanced (which needed to happen), the 4E magic system as it stands is unsatisfying for me.
Herremann the Wise

Unfortunately this is also how i perceive 4e. While high level magic in 3x needed to be toned down, they have castrated magic almost completely and made it mundane in the name of balance. Sure, there's some spells that stand out, but by far and large playing a wizard is not so different than playing a martial class.

Arcana Evolved still stands as one of my favorite d20 magic systems, although it also has the flaw of the 15 minute adventuring day and super-powered wizards at high level. Still, i would like to see a magic system that is scalable, and like Herremann mentioned, the possibility of critical failure. I think that this chance of failure and the tension therein would be an excellent balancing factor that keeps wizards from frequently reaching for their most powerful spells.

It has has the excellent opportunity to introduce infernal pacts with dark gods and demons and other story elements. I guess i'm also thinking about how Warhammer handles magic too.

This approach to magic has been left untouched in gaming, and for good reason. It's easy for a writer to create a wizard that will be prudent with his arcane wisdom. Trying to get an ambitious fantasy gamer (even a well-meaning one) to do the same is risky at best. GURPS has no such bounds, however. The magic system is flexible enough to permit Unlimited Mana that will balance in ANY fantasy campaign, even the lowest of "low fantasy!"[/Indent]How does it work?

Every mage has a Threshold (Thresh) score -- this defines the safe limits of his magic. If his tally remains at or below his Thresh, everything is fine. If his tally exceed his Thresh, Bad Things can happen, and the mage must roll on the Calamity Table.​

This turns ""Sorry, you're done for the day," into "Are you sure you want to do that?"

I think Warhammer does something similar to this. Magic can actually destroy you.