D&D 5E What Magic System do you prefer?

[Li Shenron]

The 5e system is easier to play, but I am still slightly more fond of the traditional 0e-3e traditional vancian.

The old-school version involved different default spell slots and a reduced presence of bonus spells (only clerics got them, if I recall correctly - I know for sure that wizards didn't get them), as well as "clerical spells" only having 7 levels while "wizard spells" had 9 levels. Plus there was a slight favoring of clerics by them having more base spell slots than wizards (likely to account for the need to prepare any healing spells, as spontaneous casting hadn't yet been implemented).

The two versions kind of match up in the mid-range of levels, but 3.5 had significantly more spell slots available to casters in the low-range, and often in the high-range of levels too because of access to higher ability scores and the bonus spell slots provided.

For the purpose of comparing "systems" I think the two should have been merged into the same poll option. I don't think numbers and levels should make a difference in this poll, otherwise we should also differentiate 0e from BECMI and AD&D. Instead, the only system-wide significant difference between 3e and predecessors was the presence of some limited spontaneous casting for Clerics (and Druids in 3.5), and of course Sorcerer/Bard. But I still think this poll would be better if it was about different casting rules rather than edition's set of options.

 

[MoonSong]

Kinda late for party...

The old-school version involved different default spell slots and a reduced presence of bonus spells (only clerics got them, if I recall correctly - I know for sure that wizards didn't get them), as well as "clerical spells" only having 7 levels while "wizard spells" had 9 levels. Plus there was a slight favoring of clerics by them having more base spell slots than wizards (likely to account for the need to prepare any healing spells, as spontaneous casting hadn't yet been implemented).

The two versions kind of match up in the mid-range of levels, but 3.5 had significantly more spell slots available to casters in the low-range, and often in the high-range of levels too because of access to higher ability scores and the bonus spell slots provided.

And the 3.5 version incorporated the sorcerer class, while there was no "less spells more often" arcane caster in the prior standard rules.

TO me they are basically the same, and sorcerer is completely orthogonal to this discussion as they have never been vancian and don't use Neo-Vancian.

All of the above, depending on the class. except "memorise", which just seems stupid to me.

Wizards get 3.5 style.
Sorcerer's get 5e style.
Psions get lemon curry points.
Warlock get to be special snowflakes. Charging their power based on what they do for their patron.
Clerics should also be special snowflakes. Charging their power based on what they do for their diety.


Really clerics and warlocks can be the same class.

too differetn form what I think sorcerers should be. But yes Warlocks and Clerics are basically the same to me too.

The former only had cantrips as an option later in the ed, while 3e had slots for cantrips, and, perhaps this is semantic, but old-School you 'memorized' and 'forgot' spells, while in 3e you 'prepared' them by casting most of the spell in advance, then triggering it with the last few syllables of the incantation to cast it. Mechanically they were virtually the same, of course, but the fluff was very different - and intertwined with the mechanics.

Darn, completely forgot about those sorts of variants.

I have a compromise. Spells take long times to cast, but when you prepare them, you basically seal them until you need them. Now due to the complex way the world works, the gestures needed to unlock each spell are unique, and you need to memorize them each time, because they aren't the same gestures and words each time. If you forget the gestures, the spell is lost. And once you cast you don't really forget the spell, but rather you need to forget the gestures and words.

I'm mulling over doing a game with Hyper-Vancian. Wherein a high-level mage might memorize 5 or 10 spells. Maybe 1 per odd level. Lots of odd and esoteric spells that need to be unearthed in dusty tomes. Memorization times of 1 hour per spell or even 1 hour per spell level. Make magic such a hassle that only the curious, the insane or the desperate would make a study of it. I really like the sound of that.

I have similar but diffferent ideas, maybe wizards need to copy spells from a creature each time they learn? if you want blink, you need to dissect lots of blink dogs, If you want fly, the same with pixies, If you want fireball, good luck with killing red dragons, If you need a spell that mends items or opens locks, you need to dissect a sorcerer who naturally developed the spell...

 

[DEFCON 1]

I very much prefer 5E's method over any of the previous ones. In 3E I'd always prefer to play Sorcerers and Favored Souls over Wizards and Clerics because I found Vancian casting irritating when it came to non-combat spells. Choosing specific combat spells for specific slots I was relatively okay with-- guessing on the types of energy resistances we might be facing or the numbers/shapes of the enemies arriving thus dictating which combat spells to prepare. But even if I guessed wrong it'd still be relatively okay because that Lightning Bolt would still be useful even if a Fireball would have been more optimal in a particular fight. But to try and guess which non-combat spells might be necessary in a particular adventure (and sucks to be you if you could have used that Comprehend Languages when you prepared Alarm instead) was a fools errand in my opinion, and why I much prefer Sorcs & FSs.

In actuality... had 3E separated combat and non-combat spells like 4E did (into spells and rituals)... and then told you to prepare specific combat spells plus a generic "ritual" spell into your slots (that "ritual" spell then allowing you to cast ANY of the non-combat spells you had prepared)... I would have found the 3E Vancian more tolerable. If I knew how to Detect Poison or Create Water... and found myself in that one encounter out of fifty I might run where either of those spells would have been useful-- but of course didn't prepare them because who is really going to give up a spell slot for a 1 in 50 chance (rather than selecting another Magic Missile which would almost ALWAYS find some use)-- I always would be irritated.

So give me 5E and having a set number of my spells to have on hand just in case... but don't have to use or waste if I don't want to. Sure... I might occasionally guess wrong and not put in a spell to my prepared list that could have been useful in a specific encounter... but having 4 to 20 prepared slots to guess with (and not really losing much if I guessed wrong) is much better than a single one that ends up being wasted if I do.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

I very much prefer 5E's method over any of the previous ones. In 3E I'd always prefer to play Sorcerers and Favored Souls over Wizards and Clerics because I found Vancian casting irritating when it came to non-combat spells. Choosing specific combat spells for specific slots I was relatively okay with-- guessing on the types of energy resistances we might be facing or the numbers/shapes of the enemies arriving thus dictating which combat spells to prepare. But even if I guessed wrong it'd still be relatively okay because that Lightning Bolt would still be useful even if a Fireball would have been more optimal in a particular fight. But to try and guess which non-combat spells might be necessary in a particular adventure (and sucks to be you if you could have used that Comprehend Languages when you prepared Alarm instead) was a fools errand in my opinion, and why I much prefer Sorcs & FSs.

In actuality... had 3E separated combat and non-combat spells like 4E did (into spells and rituals)... and then told you to prepare specific combat spells plus a generic "ritual" spell into your slots (that "ritual" spell then allowing you to cast ANY of the non-combat spells you had prepared)... I would have found the 3E Vancian more tolerable. If I knew how to Detect Poison or Create Water... and found myself in that one encounter out of fifty I might run where either of those spells would have been useful-- but of course didn't prepare them because who is really going to give up a spell slot for a 1 in 50 chance (rather than selecting another Magic Missile which would almost ALWAYS find some use)-- I always would be irritated.

So give me 5E and having a set number of my spells to have on hand just in case... but don't have to use or waste if I don't want to. Sure... I might occasionally guess wrong and not put in a spell to my prepared list that could have been useful in a specific encounter... but having 4 to 20 prepared slots to guess with (and not really losing much if I guessed wrong) is much better than a single one that ends up being wasted if I do.

Yeah, as far I'm concerned, that's the major design triumph of the neo-vancian mechanics. Planning out spells for an adventure in the 3.x era required either copious use of Divination spells to wheedle information out of the DM, trying to predict the future and read the DMs mind, or putting together a combination of spells that guaranteed success eventually (Clone+Magic Jar, anyone?) almost regardless of what happened during play. Not having to play the 'I must predict what I'm going to need across a staggeringly large spell list from multiple books down to the individual spell slots!' game is just so much better.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

For D&D, I really like 5E's magic system.

But my favorite system overall is from Shadowrun. All spells are at will. When you cast a spell, you choose it's power level. The more powerful it is, the more damage you have to attempt to soak for casting it. I love it, but I don't think it works well in a level based system like D&D.

 

[Nytmare]

But my favorite system overall is from Shadowrun.

It's been a long, loooong time since I played, but is that a version of the magic system from a newer edition, or is that just another one of those things that I've forgotten in the last 24 years?

To be fair, I think my only real memory of Shadowrun is my 6 foot whatever, built-like-a-linebacker, friend Ian squealing like a schoolgirl and doing a little dance while screaming, "Ooooooo! Look at all the sixes!"

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

My preference really depends on whether we are talking single-class casters or multi-class casters. What works well for a wizard or a cleric might be an awful system if it is a cleric/wizard multi-class, or any other combination where the sources of the magical power are different. For example, a cleric/wizard should not be able to use cleric spell slots/spell points, etc to cast a wizard spell or vice versa. Now, if the character follows a god of magic, that could be different, but that starts making the magic system way too complicated for D&D.

But overall, my preference out of all the by the book and house rules systems I have played or created is a hybrid of spell slots and spell points. All spells have a level and character spell slots are converted into spell points on a one-to-one basis: a level one spell slot is one point, a level two is two points, etc. and a level one spell costs one point to cast, a level two is two points, etc. So a level five slot is worth five points which can be used to cast any combination of spells that add up to five points. Keeping the sources of the magic separate applies to this system too. Divine, Arcane, Patron, etc do not mix in my system.

 

[flametitan]

5e's default works fairly well as a baseline in most worlds. I'd only consider mucking with it beyond short/long rest duration if I had a very specific worldbuilding goal I was trying to achieve. To me, as long as it's balanced out so that neither ends of the Martial-Magic spectrum are too heavily weighted, preference doesn't matter as much as why magic works the way it does.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

For D&D, I think I prefer spell points overall, with 5e's method being a very close second. I always found the notion that you have to memorize spells ahead of time to be silly. If you know a spell, if you've studied it, you should be able to cast it anytime you want, provided you have the materials with which to do so. Limiting potent spells by having difficult to acquire or expensive (or both) components is fine. Limiting them by saying you just...forget how to cast it until you've slept on it? That always struck me as ridiculous, from the first time I played D&D ~35 years ago. It throws me right out of my suspension of disbelief.

Even preparing most of a spell then finishing what little bit is left when you want to release the energy, while more palatable, struck me as rather silly. While I can see that for wizards, perhaps, it is the divine and primal classes where that fundamentally breaks down for me. Clerics and druids, especially clerics, ask for what they need from their god (or nature itself) as they need it. Having them prepare spells ahead of time is so frigging asinine, to me. Period. Like, it's close to a deal-breaker, really. I think clerics in particular should be on some sort of a system where they can just cast every spell they know as often as they want, but the more and more they cast spells, especially more potent spells, in a limited time frame, the more likely they are to piss their god off for demanding too much. Moreover, the more they cast spells when it's merely a luxury, and not a NEED (or not something that directly furthers the goals of that god), the more likely they are to tick said god off. I also think that clerics of each god likely should have their own unique spell list, actually. Giving every cleric access to spells of every kind of effect across the board? No. The god of trickery isn't likely to give their followers flashy, explosive combat spells, or powerful buffs for their allies, possibly not even healing spells. Some gods of the dead would give healing (as some gods of the dead represent both life and death, the circle of life itself, not merely death), but many would NOT. Healing and pacifistic gods would certainly not give damaging spells, possibly not even offensive-oriented buffs, sticking primarily to healing spells, defensive buffs, etc.

Of course, my favorite magic system ever is Mage: the Ascension. So...if D&D could ever come close to a system like that, I'd be all for it. >_>

But really, on the whole, I think spell points best mimics the basic concept of bringing to bear your magical prowess by utilizing the spells you've studied and understand. Got off on a minor tangent there.