What inspired the D&D magic rules and do you like it?

[VirgilCaine]

I like that strategic aspect, but it creates a different feel than you find in most fantasy universes.

You have articulated an attractive point--Vancian magic forces players to plan ahead, to think. I like this. [Or they could just take the most general application spells, but then thats what Magic Missile is there for.]

I like the Vancian system and I think that D&D without Vancian magic isn't D&D to me. Thats just what I think about it.

 

[RFisher]

The "slots" system is really just a complex points system. You have multiple point totals instead of just a single point total, & (in some cases) the prep/memormize requirement. (My group used to play clerics & mages 3e-sorceror-style in some OAD&D campaigns.)

The slots system has some advantages in that you can give fairly easy but still limited access to some pretty powerful spells. The prep requirement enchances this. (Do you want to memorize the really powerful but potentially not applicable spell or a less powerful spell that may be more generally useful.)

The thing that I really like about D&D magic is that it is reliable. Professional wizards shouldn't have to worry about spell failure or backfires unless they are doing something really unusual.

I like to include Vance's idea that magic is a lost science. Wizards learn to cast the spells that were created in antiquity, but maybe none really have the understanding to create new spells. When a wizard does manage to create a new spell, it was probably just blind luck in modifying spells he already knew.

I like having a system for creating spells. Like Hero or the Codex Mysterium. On the other hand, D&D's approach of letting the spell designer do almost anything & then just trying to figure out what level it should be has its advantages too.

Free form magic, like Ars Magica or GURPS Magic's runes is lots of fun, if you like free form systems. Free form doesn't work for everyone, though.

I tend to like magic systems that take lots of time to cast spells, although this tends to limit its usefulness in the dungeon.

I like the idea of not letting PCs be magicians, so then magic in the game can serve much the same role it does in literature. Or the idea someone had for Fudge of making PCs spend Fudge points (a mechanic for giving the player a bit of narrative control) to make almost anything happen "by magic".

& then there's the UMana system for GURPS. Brilliant, but not suited for every campaign.

 

[pdkoning]

(SNIP)

I like the idea of not letting PCs be magicians, so then magic in the game can serve much the same role it does in literature. Or the idea someone had for Fudge of making PCs spend Fudge points (a mechanic for giving the player a bit of narrative control) to make almost anything happen "by magic".

& then there's the UMana system for GURPS. Brilliant, but not suited for every campaign.

This is what I meant by 'no magic' in my startpost of this thread -> no PC's should use magic. The storyteller might add some supernatural things here and there, be it 'magic', be it 'divine intervention' or something similar. This is the way I implement it in my homebrew.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I like the idea of not letting PCs be magicians, so then magic in the game can serve much the same role it does in literature. Or the idea someone had for Fudge of making PCs spend Fudge points (a mechanic for giving the player a bit of narrative control) to make almost anything happen "by magic".

I like the idea of players who don't feal cheated because other, powerful persons can do stuff they never will be able to. I don't like Gandalf NPC's (though he's a bad example cause he doesn't show much magic, but still, it's more than the rest of the Fellowship combined has).

And you shouldn't overgeneralize your view. Magic doesn't have this role in "literature". Only in some literature. The best example is surely Harry Potter, but lots of other novels include protagonists with magic at their disposal.

 

[Slobber Monster]

I like the idea of players who don't feal cheated because other, powerful persons can do stuff they never will be able to. I don't like Gandalf NPC's (though he's a bad example cause he doesn't show much magic, but still, it's more than the rest of the Fellowship combined has).

And you shouldn't overgeneralize your view. Magic doesn't have this role in "literature". Only in some literature. The best example is surely Harry Potter, but lots of other novels include protagonists with magic at their disposal.

This is my opinion as well. The whole magic in literature argument drives me a little nuts because it's simply not universally true.

So far as rulesets go I think it's easier for the no-magic folks to take a well defined and balanced magic system and ban it all from PC's than it is for those of us who like player control of magic to invent such a system ourselves. Therefore it makes sense for the default rules to include one.

 

[Narfellus]

I think George RR Martin runs either a low magic or no magic campaign, and that's pretty much how his Game of Thrones series is. When magic shows up, it is spectacular and frightening and legendary in its uniqueness. It's not that i don't like the Vancian system, it's just that it's so old and familiar. But it certainly gets the job done.

Then again, i couldn't imagine not being a spellcaster of some kind in a campaign. They're my favorite kind to run (although i usually GM). They're also the funnest villians and monsters and cultists. Depends on what you like i guess.

 

[Staffan]

So why can't a mage just simply spend the time needed to trully cast a spell from his spell book, but NOT memorise it, whenever he has time? As it isn't being memorised, he can spend the 10 to twenty minutes reading it from the book and casting it without having to worry about spell slots right? or am I just seeing this from the wrong perspective here?

Because the mage is also limited in the amount of magic he can use in any one day. The "spell slots prepared" thing isn't just "you can have this much magic at any one time", it's "you can use this much magic in one day." What you're describing is basically the same as taking 15 minutes to fill up a slot and then casting the spell.

 

[Henry]

Personally, I wouldn't mind letting someone cast one spell from their book every 15 minutes without limitation, especially in 3.5; it's not like they'd get a lot of use out of it, and using it in-combat is out of the question.

 

[Staffan]

I'm starting to sound like a HARP whore, but here goes - I really like the way HARP does spellcasting.

I haven't yet played HARP, but I do have the main book as well as two supplements (Martial Law and whatever the magic book is called). I like the idea behind the magic system, but some things look like they won't work out well in practice - for example, IIRC the penalty you get to casting from "boosting" the Elemental Bolt spell cancels out the extra bonus you get from throwing a bigger bolt, while at the same time costing you more resources (magic points) and taking longer. But that's a matter of fine-tuning, not re-engineering.

One magic system that looks good but that I never got to try out properly either is Earthdawn's. In ED, magicians have a small number of "Spell matrices" that can each hold one spell. You can swap the spells out, but that either takes a while (like ten minutes IIRC), or requires skill rolls (with failure meaning you burn the matrix out for a while). In order to cast a spell, you must usually first weave some threads of magic power to the matrix (one skill), and then roll for the actual spellcasting (another). However, as long as you have the spell in a matrix, you can keep casting it all day long.

In addition to the normal matrix casting, you can also use "raw magic". The idea is that the purpose of the spell matrix is to act as a buffer between the magician and the astral plane, because a recent invasion of bad things from beyond (though they've mostly gone away now) has left the astral plane severely polluted and hazardous. Casting raw magic will cause the magician some damage, and may attract the attention of some of the remaining nasties.

 

[Von Ether]

I think the Spell Slot system is excellent for Core D&D.
It is easy to learn, easy to manage and easy to balance for newcomers.
Nyrf

YMMV, I respectfully disagree on the easy part. I have yet to see a true newbie look anything but scared when they see how think the PHB is. DnD has always be a hobbist game. You have to be in the hobby of game collecting (wargames, CCGs, whatever) to make an easy jump to RPGs, DnD style.

Manage? I'm getting back into DnD and looking at this whole list of spells of an 6th level wizard NPC that I have to memorize, bleh. I've gotten used to a smaller number of effects that I can utilize more often or being able to construct something on the fly and figure out its price later.

I have to agree on Balance, simply because if a spell is too weak or two strong, you simply move it up or down a level until seem just right and you have 9 guesses to do it in.

Of couse all of this is my subjective opnion and acentdotal. ...