What kind of magic do you like?

[Numion]

More destructive and flashy = better.

I just like to open the can of evocation on my players. I also like using insta-death spells, since it's effective and adds a sense of danger to combat. And wise players can protect their characters from said spells.

In short, anything that let's me kick the PCs asses is good.

 

[hong]

The best magic I like is white. I've always been one to wear the white hat. Green is okay, blue as well. Red is flashy and destructive, but works. Black is a no-no.

 

[Mordax_sighs]

Defending D&D...

Having D&D magic be a *little* more unpredictable would be nice. Like, having Fireballs that occasionally miss.

However, I wouldn't use a spell backfire system for D&D for one simple reason: D&D is complicated enough as it is. By level 8 or so, a battlefield can be absolutely *littered* with magical effects, and I have a hard enough time keeping them all straight without adding another step to each and every one.

Moreover, a lot of D&D is balanced around the current magic system. If you monkey with the wrong detail, combat balance can fall apart. (I've seen this, unfortunately.)

In other worlds that Have Less Magic, I like magic to have more mystique, but it's easier to just play a different game than re-balance D&D, IMO. (The only exception is, I'm looking forward to doing some Conan style gaming with the CoC magic.)

 

[willpax]

Like Arcady, I'm playtesting an alternate magical system.

The theme I like to see emphasized in magic is craft; that is, I want magic to take much study (mechanic: skill based) yet be flexible (from one skill you could create a variety of effects). I also want it to be dangerous. It messes with my suspension of disbelief that it is possible for someone to be able to fry a room full of people with fire yet not be able to light a simple torch.

Like many others, I like a system in which magic tires the caster. I've been using a VP/WP system and have magic cost vitality points.

I like a system in which there is some sense of poetic justice: using magic to deal damage and death should be bad for the soul. Making deals with demons can grant you many powers quickly, but at a high cost over the long run. Most magicians should prefer playing it safe (divination, illusion).

Another variant that has been discussed on the boards is the possibility of some kind of magical radar-- when you cast a spell, other casters within some range will become aware of it.

As far as game breaking spells: it really depends on the game. I think there are a high number of spells that, if common, would have drastic effects on a given society. If every major town has a dozen people who can cast invisibility, then security measures will be much different from "normal" late medieval practice. Anything that messes with universal concepts (such as resurrection) wold almost certainly need to be rare and come at a high cost.

It may be that each person has her or his own sense of proper balance between a mechanic that preserves a sense of wonder and mystery and a mechanic that is workable and reasonably resistant to abuse.

 

[Garmorn]

D&D magic works for me.

I see no reason to add a nother level of varible to a spell casting then you have in physical combat or other skills. You are ready have to roll to hit with lots of spells or have saves that are out of your control. Why weaken the spell caster just to add a level of false mystery to the system. Many use Fireball as an example of a spell that takes the mystery out of magic yet it has two levels of randomness in it. First is how well did you cast it? Was your casting powerfull (high damage roll) or did you barely get the spell off? (extermly low damage roll). The the enemy react quckly and protect them selves or did they not even see it coming (Save or failed their saving throw). If you add a skill check also then the poor spell caster have yet another roll that can ruin/reduce the effect of the spell. Compare that a fighter that has two rolls to make but can continue to make them untill he or his opponent(s) are down while the spell caster has a limited number of chances.

As for other types/methods of casting they just don't make sence or intrest me. I have played every thing from Rolemaster to Gurps and Heros and have not found a system is more enjoyable to play as D&D's. Most mana systems either have weaker spells meaning that spell caster have far less effect in game or have a second control system that limits the power of the spell caster. Some don't allow the spell caster do any more damage then the average weapon or maybe equal the more powerful ones at a higher cost/risk.

Systems that put the spell caster at risk just seems to give the spell caster reason never to go into combat. Why risk your self in combat when just casting a simple spell is just as dangerous?

The final point for me is that all the books that I like the spell caster never had to worry about their magic unless they were not fulling trained. Many point to the Lord of the Rings but Gandalf was the only spell caster we saw and his magic seemed to work with fail or danger of backfire.

I would not mind a system where other spell caster could notice your casting of magic if it was powerfull enough and they were skill(high enough level) at a distance. One such system was simple. It used the spell level/cost to as a multipler times a distance based upon the other spell casters level. A moderate level caster had a base distance of a mile, so could detect a 5th level spell cast as far away as 5 miles while a very high level caster could detect a powrfull spell from hunders of miles away.

Garmorn

 

[Psion]

First off, I'd like to be anal and point out that "Vancian fire and forget" is a bit of a misnomer, since under 3e, no one "forgets" anything.

At any rate, I have played with various systems over the years - point based, strength draining, chaotic effect inducing, spontaneous, etc., including both other systems (published and homebrew) and house rules for D&D. While all these systems have their charm, I still think that 3e's system is the way to go[TM]. It is about the only system that seem to me to have the right combination of playability and balance. Other systems are plagued with annoying problems associated with accounting, when balanced seem like they gut the mage, or simply own that the mage is going to be the most powerful character.

One thing that does cause me problems is the arcane/divine dichotomy. It's really not clear to me WHY there should be a difference, and the more I fiddle with concepts like shamans, the less clear it becomes.

And actually, if I do away with any type of magic, it would probably be arcane.

At any rate, I have what I consider to be a satisfactory theory of how magic works in my game. Unless I have some campaign-related motivation for creating a different feel, I find the motivations for creating an alternate casting system rather weak.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I did a quick run through, and I don't think I saw it mentioned...

The magic system from d20 Sovereign Stone, and its companion Codex Mysterium, might be worth a look.

For myself, I'd like a system something along the lines of the following...

* Number of spells that may be cast from memory limited by INT and level (may "swap out" spells using spellbooks, etc).

* These "memorized" spells may be cast an unlimited number of times--subject to caster's energy, fumbles, etc...

* Spell use fatigues (or drains a mana pool), or has the potential to actually harm, the caster.

* Perhaps a chance to forget, or become a bit hazy regarding the necessary details of, spells if a DC check is failed--thereby requiring the caster to "hit the books". If this option were used, it might not be necessary to place a limit on memory.

* Perhaps a caster could cast a certain number of spells from memory (as outlined in the 1st point) without chance of failure, while any beyond this limit would always have the risk of failing (being imprecisely remembered).

Anyway, put me down as a vote against "fire and forget", but I'd still like spellbooks to play an important and ongoing role--rather than never requiring a caster to go back and occaisionaly study a spell after he's "learned" it.

 

[Voadam]

As a player I like D&D magic because it is stable, I am familiar with it and it allows me to do many things.

As a DM I like it because the mechanics are usually simple and quick to implement (particularly important in running combats).

I do all right in evoking a "magic is cool" or "magic is occult power" feeling in my games.

I like the background flavor of Shadowrun and Earthdawn and the divisions of magic in Ars Magica.

I have added a lot of non D&D magic into my home games but usually in the form of arcane spells for wizards/sorcerers.

I have thought of adding abilities for spontaneous casting but they have not really materialized other than for Gurps.

I dislike spells that give away too much info without making players interact. For instance, speak with dead is cool but I dislike omniscient divination question abilities.

I dislike time travelling spells. I dislike that magic missile is auto hit/no save and that it uses d4s instead of d6s. I dislike that standard wizards are crippled without their spellbooks. I also dislike that healing cannot be done by arcane magic (and only for balance and cleric niche reasons) yet polymorph heals you. I dislike that polymorph heals you so therefore cloak of the bat is a healing item.

 

[Darklone]

Magic....

I really really like the Chaos Magic from Mongooooose Publishing. Only real problem: Mages need to work a long time till the PLAYER knows how to cast his spells and which spells. Another minor problem: It's chaotic. And they included things into it to mark it as chaotic. That makes it hard to use it as the only existent magic.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

FWIW, this is how I do things in my Basic D&D campaign ...

* The number of spell slots represent two things (1) the character's learning, and (2) his power.

* The character may prepare a number of spells equal to these slots; this represents especially dedicated study. Multiple slots may be devoted to a single spell to represent heightened specialization. This requires access to a magical library, spell books, etc...

* The required INT for casting a prepared spell is 9+Spell Level--the chance of failure is 5% per point below this.

* The required INT for casting an unprepared spell is 18+Spell Level--the chance for failure is 5% per point below this.

* A wizard may attempt to cast a spell by sacrificing one of the daily spell slots.

* On a failed attempt, a prepared spell loses one slot devoted to it, becoming unprepared when no slots remain; while an unprepared spell may no longer be cast at all, until the wizard can study his tomes.

* A spell remains in the prepared category until such time as failures move it out, or the caster chooses to prepare another spell in its place, and may be cast multiple times during the day, regardless of the number of slots devoted to it--subject to the daily spell allowance and failure rolls.

* Similarly, unprepared spells may be cast multiple times, until a roll is failed, or the caster runs out of spell slots for the day.