What system of magic do you use?

[Roadkill101]

I go by the book. But, I wrote the book as I use my own system to run games with. It's essentially a point-buy (i.e. mana) based magic system, where the points are used to define the spells parameters (e.g. duration, area of effect, damage), with spells being built on the fly as cast.

I run an occasional D&D one shot, using a heavily home-brewed system borrowing rules from BECMI, 1st/2nd (I view these editions as being basically the same), 3.x and 4th. I greatly changed the magic system to where it's now a point-buy/mana system, such that a spells level is it's cost in mana. If a caster knows a spell (has recorded it in their spell book, using the 1st ed chance to learn spell rules) then they may cast it and any others freely so long as they have sufficient mana, making casters functionally similar to the 3.x Sorcerer oppossed to the traditiona MU/Wizard who can only memorize a certain number of spells/slots. I only allow spells from the 1e PHB, mostly to limit the number of books needed at the table.

I allow characters to create items for either system, if the character meets such criteria. However, doing so always has a heavy cost in time away from adventuring, so such events are rare and items usually on the weak end (equivalent to a +1 weapon or charged item with few charges).

 

[Jhaelen]

In my hopefully-soon-to-be-finished D&D 3e campaign I introduced a new wizard specialization, the 'wind wizards'. Basically, their spell list included a mix of elemental (air/water) wizard and druid spells. They used knotted strings to store their spells.

It was based on a Finnish magical tradition I had read about in one of my Ars Magica supplement.

Ars Magica is simply the best source for magic systems I know. The supplements 'Ancient Magic' and 'The Mysteries' are particularly fascinating.

 

[Khairn]

As a broad generalization, I use whatever magic system is native to the game I'm playing. I'm a "right tool for the job" sort of person. When I want to run a game, I decide what kind of feel I want the thing to have, and I pick a system to suit - and how magic operates is a major part of that. If the native magic system doesn't do pretty close to what I want, I just choose a different system.

Ditto

That said, my favorite magic systems include Elements of Magic, Arcanna Evolved, Ars Magica and Mage (both new and old). One of these days I hope to finish my medieval fantasy version of oMage which will hopefully include some type of balance between the flexibility and wonder of that magic system with the skill and combat monkeys I love to play.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I use the mana system from Unearthed Arcana 3.5 book for my Pathfinder games. The mana system has a better feel for my world and allows me to quantify things like blood magic, crystals, runes, etc...

 

[Wepwawet]

For magic, I use anything that's not Vancian spellcasting.
Which for D&D means that's I always incorporate many variant rules from UA

 

[Gilladian]

I'm pretty firmly in the Vancian magic camp. I prefer a lower magic campaign than standard 3e, which is my rule-system of choice. Therefore the next campaign I run will be using the e6 rules variant.

My players (fairly stable over the last 3 years, and some players for over 15 years) rarely create items, preferring to "get what's found" and make use of it. I use a small number of sources beyond the PH (mainly the spell compendium and magic item compendium) but only I pull from those, generally. The players seem happy with the PH as their main source.

In fact, they rarely run prestige classes or non-PH core classes. I'd really like to have someone run a duskblade or such, but nobody has!

I tried a point-buy system for years with 2e, and while it wasn't bad, it was just an added layer of complexity. fire and forget works fine...

 

[Umbran]

One of these days I hope to finish my medieval fantasy version of oMage which will hopefully include some type of balance between the flexibility and wonder of that magic system with the skill and combat monkeys I love to play.

Good luck, because that's a tall order. Mage is designed to give you magic that is far, far beyond mortal ken. Powerful Mages shift continents - balancing that with combat monkeys is difficult.

A suggestion: I haven't tried it myself, but it is a variant that I've heard of that sounds like it might go a long way in that regard...

In standard Mage, low numbers of dots in a Sphere doesn't allow you to do much. One dot, and you get sensory information, and not much else. With many dots, you can perform massive feats.

Turn that around - make it so that low numbers of dots allow for blatant, flashy stuff, but information gathering and detail take subtlety only gained with experience. So, creating a raw glob of energy (like a fireball or lightning bolt) is a newbie trick, while careful control to accomplish a precise, coincidental, and detailed task requires greater training.

 

[Khairn]

Turn that around - make it so that low numbers of dots allow for blatant, flashy stuff, but information gathering and detail take subtlety only gained with experience. So, creating a raw glob of energy (like a fireball or lightning bolt) is a newbie trick, while careful control to accomplish a precise, coincidental, and detailed task requires greater training.

Thanks! Combined with a world setting where the use of magic comes with problems beyond simple paradox (mobs with pitchforks etc) would really help to push the necessity for mastering the subtlety of magic (higher dots) quickly. Raw damage would still have to be balanced through Arete, but I can really see how a young magi, being as subtle as a sledgehammer, would have to be used very carefully.

Great idea.

 

[karlindel]

In 2e, I and most DMs I played with made clerics spontaneous casters or at least allowed them to spontaneously cast healing spells.

In 3e, I used the default magic system, occasionally with minor tweaks. I am not a fan of D&D style casting (often referred to as Vancian), but I also dislike conversions of the D&D spell system directly to a point-based system. I also was not a fan of psionics. I ran Arcana Unearthed/Evolved for a little while and enjoyed the way that system worked.

In 4e, I use the default magic system (i.e. players select powers and use rituals for most out of combat magical effects). My party has used rituals to good effect.

For non-D&D games, I tend to use the default system of whatever game I am running, occasionally with minor tweaks. Magic should be an integral part of a setting that has it, and if the magic system does not support the setting/story, then I would use a different system of magic (which also means using a different game system, as it requires more effort than it is worth to split a magic system from the rest of the game).

 

[Ajar]

In d20, I use True Sorcery, the system Green Ronin adapted from their Black Company Campaign Setting. It's very flexible, but it's really freaking complicated. The upshot is that I only resort to designing a caster NPC with arcanist class levels when I have no other option.

So I guess I wouldn't say I recommend it -- it certainly captures the feel of magic in the Black Company books, but as a result it's quite difficult to use.