Favorite magic system?

Magic is a often brought up topic in RPGs. Not only is it brought up a lot but it is often a highlight of a system. So I have a question for everyone:

What is your favorite magic system out of any game you played?

I have to say I like Mage: The Ascensions system. I've never got to play the game but just by reading it I get the feeling that near anything is possible with it.

Any system that uses a pay to cast sort of thing (such as Psionics with Power Points) has me at hello. It's easy to manage and fun to find the ways to maximize benefits with

Ars Magica is one of my faves (noun verb combos) and I liked the Umana system (escalating risk)

ToeSama wrote:

Any system that uses a pay to cast sort of thing (such as Psionics with Power Points) has me at hello. It's easy to manage and fun to find the ways to maximize benefits with

I too like point pool systems. I like the idea of having so much energy to draw upon and being able to cast spells without preparation.

Garthanos wrote:

Ars Magica is one of my faves (noun verb combos) and I liked the Umana system (escalating risk)

What is Ars Magica magic like? I've never played it.

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

Ars Magica is one of my faves (noun verb combos) and I liked the Umana system (escalating risk)

What is Ars Magica magic like? I've never played it.

Only played a very small amount the magic system had both rote magics and improvisation... though the latter was generally only for lesser effects, the flavor was pretty darn cool they did define explicit limits about magic based on it. One of the first things I did was try to figure out how to bring in heroic class non-mages ;p - my desire for balance rather overwhelming their intrinsic hierarchy implied by game story   - I wasnt that successful.

Umana was a system written for GURPS by the way.

http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/blueroom/unlimited-mana.htm

I think some of my recent ideas I call the price of power system may be my favorite magic system (it is leverageable for non-magic too).

Partially Quoting myself from the Wizards site

The Price of Power (leveraging the action economy)

Multi-action (multi-round) casting - hey just 2 standard action cost for more poweful battle field casting might be interesting (Note multi-action casting integrates with action points fairly nicely. ) and can be visualized in martial context as using a round as a setup for the next. Some defensive magics might have action cost to restore once penetrated and regaining a stance after forced movement ;-p might have an action cost.

Repercussions (spells have side effects on there users - certain invoker spells in 4e) these might be generalized or specific to spells or result in 2 rounds of aftermath where you are limited to at-will spells. This might include fatigue (spending hit points and/or healing surges - see bloodmage paragon path) . Repercussion(s) and action cost can be combined for even greater effects.

Perhaps the player can decide what price to pay or perhaps spells are always set and maneuvers are always decided on? or some variation base on flavor.

This doesnt address out of combat magic but in effect it allows most combat casting to be virtually at-will but with price tags in the action economy and hp arena that make them intrinsically self limiting.

The idea for hit point expenditure was something I first thought of in 1e era... in effect casters are not really squishy(in 1e I doubled wizards hit points and had a casting check which regulated how much was spent) but casting might make them so depending on how they manage the resources. And fighters who lead with their noses and perform sacrifice moves etc might end up squishy too - It ties these things to tactical choices and reduces book-keeping. Another reason to use hit points instead of separate mana tracking because hit points from the beginning were described as having a component of using magic in desperate defense and separating the offensive use of that power from defensive seems artificial. The difference between stopping because somebody is spent offensively or spent defensively isnt really a difference.

The action economy angle sort of creates a tighter conceptual connect between rituals and the battle magic.

All spells would have at-will form and 2 enhanced forms and likely a ritual form too.

I have never seen a magic system that I was overjoyed with. They all seem to have issues. I would lean toward power point/mana based systems, but I really like improvisation and flexibility. I mean, it's magic, a magic user should be able to mold it to a certain extent rather than be stuck with discrete spells. Vancian never made any sense at all. It always seemed like a completely bass-ackwards gamist mechanic that forced wizards to reach a certain level before they blew up the world rather than any simulation of the way magic works in a game world. How the hell does the act of casting a spell cause you to forget how to cast it? I guess you'd have to explain that the same as any other goofiness in the game - It's MAGIC!
Makes me consider what it would be like if I dropped the arcane power source from the game. I would be a shame to lose bards, artificers, and sorcerers...
If I dropped just wizards (and all subclasses) where am I left for controllers - druid, invoker, psion, seeker... that seems enough, and enough variety.
TjD

Funny thing about the Vancian system is it's not even really close to how Vancian magic worked to begin with XD

Knowledge is power... oops what was I saying?

ToeSama wrote:

Funny thing about the Vancian system is it's not even really close to how Vancian magic worked to begin with XD

I was just recently told this as well.

Someone also told me that even powerful Wizards could only memorize a few spells in the novels.

I really liked some of the alternate Spell Point systems in D&D 2e. It made playing a Wizard a little more bearable to me. In fact, I can say that I pretty much hated 2e (and 3e) Wizard spell systems almost uniformly.

The explanation has to do with both the games AND the gamers that have been in my circle of friends for years. There were a couple of players that LOVED to play Wizards. But is was so frustrating because they would literally take 30 minutes to an hour AT THE GAME TABLE deciding which spells to memorize for their Wizard. And then, if we got into the adventure and there was something that could be easily bypassed by a spell that the Wizard had in their book, but hadn't memorized, they would want to have the party break for the day and rest so they could memorize that spell. Wizards were supposed to be a "versatile spell caster" with "the most options of spells" but if they didn't have the right one memorized at the time, then it didn't really matter.

Now I realize that had to do with the way the players and the DM in those situations handled things, but it still frustrated me.

And in 4E, Wizards still have that option to choose which daily and utility powers they can memorize that day. It seems to me that having that option is only any good if the character has some idea of what they might be facing. So if the DM isn't doing a good job of giving the characters clues, this versatility is no different than random chance.

But, enough gripes. Like I said, I really liked the spell point system in 2e. And Psionic Power Points is pretty awesome as well. The sorcerer-style in 3.x was cool (this included the Favoured Soul class too). The Warlock from 3.x was kind of neat. A sort of "infinite castings" option with very, very few choices of spells. And I was intrigued by the Incarnum classes from 3.x as well. The Binders from 3.x were cool and I wish the concept of the Warlock (Binder) in 4E had been expanded more with more vestiges. And the Shadow magic class from 3.x was pretty neat as well.

I think if I was a bit more ambitious, had more time, and had gamers that were interested, I'd probably try to make some of these class concepts in 4E.

In 4E, I really do like the AEDU system of powers. I think the Psionic Power source is implemented well (with the power points) especially. I just really think that it works well in the tactical system that 4E mechanics are.

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

ToeSama wrote:

Funny thing about the Vancian system is it's not even really close to how Vancian magic worked to begin with XD

I was just recently told this as well.

Someone also told me that even powerful Wizards could only memorize a few spells in the novels.

3 or 4 would be heroic 10 high epic (no multiple memorizing possible), however they would count as encounter based as long as you have your spell book. However beyond the mechanic levels I seem to recall more powerful casters had quirky little magical side effects that hovered around them and most spells they cast are warped by their own personality perhaps renamed as though a personal invention because ego is everything.

Garthanos wrote:

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

ToeSama wrote:

Funny thing about the Vancian system is it's not even really close to how Vancian magic worked to begin with XD

I was just recently told this as well.

Someone also told me that even powerful Wizards could only memorize a few spells in the novels.

3 or 4 would be heroic 10 high epic (no multiple memorizing possible), however they would count as encounter based as long as you have your spell book. However beyond the mechanic levels I seem to recall more powerful casters had quirky little magical side effects that hovered around them and most spells they cast are warped by their own personality perhaps renamed as though a personal invention because ego is everything.

I remember a tale of an archmage who could memorize four whole spells at a time!

Then again, I also remember a goofy story involving a long-suffering 'familiar' (for lack of a better term) who accomplished all kinds of crazy things for his master. The Dying Earth world doesn't translate all that well into D&D, much like all other literature, despite being the inspiration for its spell system.

As for the OP question, I honestly don't have a strong preference. The vancian system is riddled with legacy bullshit, broken spells, and pet peeves of mine; but is at its core a workable system. I suspect that if the 3e team had taken a nerf bat and given D&D's traditional spells a much-needed adjustment, 4e would look very different than it does.

4e's quasi-vancian system is great for variety and of course balance. Nobody can simply spam their best spell/attack. Like full vancian, it doesn't really work the way most fiction readers expect magic to work. But like Durriken says, it's magic!

Psionics does work more or less how magic works in literature, but support has always been sparse. Some gamers can't seem to help pigeonholing psionics into some kind of special-snowflake quasi-science-fiction psychic role, thanks to its traditional presentation, but that's neither here nor there.

I've never played a game with freeform magic; I can't help but imagine the arguments that might result from the mixed expectation of a player and his DM. Could be wrong, though.

I've been thinking about this question and something came to mind. Perhaps there is already a game out there that uses a system like this, but here's a thought I had for a much more freeform type system.

A caster would get a pool of points (spell points or mana or whatever you want to call it) and whenever they want to cast a spell, they choose which effects they want included in the spell and pay the requisite cost.

So, for example, for each die of damage the spell does, it may cost 1 point. If they want it to have a particular element type, that's another point. If they want it to stun the targets, that's 2 more points. If they want it to linger after the effect and create a zone of fire (or whatever element type they got) that's another point (and then maybe an additional point or so each round after to sustain it).

There would be a master list of effects, each with a point cost, that the caster could choose from to create the spell "on the fly".

I imagine that there might want to be some sort of maximum points per spell limit, maybe even based upon the caster's level so that higher level casters could create more complex spells. And perhaps there could be additional costs when you mix effects that are conflicting in some way. For example to make the damage both fire and ice you'd have to pay 1 point for fire, 1 point for ice, and 1 more point since fire and ice are conflicting.

This is entirely from just my musings today, but it seems intriguing to me.

Durriken wrote:

I have never seen a magic system that I was overjoyed with.  They all seem to have issues.  I would lean toward power point/mana based systems, but I really like improvisation and flexibility.  I mean, it's magic, a magic user should be able to mold it to a certain extent rather than be stuck with discrete spells.  Vancian never made any sense at all.  It always seemed like a completely bass-ackwards gamist mechanic that forced wizards to reach a certain level before they blew up the world rather than any simulation of the way magic works in a game world.  How the hell does the act of casting a spell cause you to forget how to cast it? I guess you'd have to explain that the same as any other goofiness in the game - It's MAGIC!
Makes me consider what it would be like if I dropped the arcane power source from the game.  I would be a shame to lose bards, artificers, and sorcerers...
If I dropped just wizards (and all subclasses) where am I left for controllers - druid, invoker, psion, seeker... that seems enough, and enough variety.
TjD

This is why I prefer Ars Magica, 13th Age/Dungeon World, and D&D 4E's magic systems (in that order).

In Ars Magica, preparing spells helps, and ritual casting all the more so, but you can improvise any spell effect as long as you have the skills in the proper schools of magic. Spells are organized into forms and techniques, each describing an element of magic and how you manipulate them; for example, creating fire is Creo Ignis. It gets a bit technical from there (DCs and all), but overall I like like the Ars Magica system concept (a little rules heavy and needs a bit of reorganization, but it can work especially when it comes to the long haul sort of campaigns).

[ The mobile game Magicka runs on similar principles, really fun game that one ]

DW and 13th Age share roughly the same ritual system: tell the GM what you want to achieve, he'll give you the parameters to succeed in the ritual (including time consumed & resources required [13th Age requires the expenditure of an equivalent spell as if it were a daily, even if it was normally at-will]), and you roll to see how well you did. Failure may still net you something, just not necessarily what you wanted; DW rewards XP (and something really bad at the same time), 13th Age utilizes Failing Forward instead.

D&D 4E's ritual system is what I feel is where the real magic of D&D 4E is, if only because of the fantastic effects you could pull off with it compared to your combat spells. A safe compromise between old school D&D vancian and non-vancian magic IMHO.

skwyd42 wrote:

There would be a master list of effects, each with a point cost, that the caster could choose from to create the spell "on the fly".

I've never played it, but I think the 3.x Elements of Magic does this. With a little work, you could probably mesh it into 4e.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I've never played a game with freeform magic; I can't help but imagine the arguments that might result from the mixed expectation of a player and his DM. Could be wrong, though.

Yeah that can be a problem. Because like with all game the final decision is left up to the DM. Especially when players and DMs aren't on the same page when it comes to magic and it's limitations.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

skwyd42 wrote:

There would be a master list of effects, each with a point cost, that the caster could choose from to create the spell "on the fly".

I've never played it, but I think the 3.x Elements of Magic does this. With a little work, you could probably mesh it into 4e.

I'll look into this. Thanks! I doubt that I'll do anything to adapt it to 4E, however. The problem I have is that even if I did work up something, I don't have the time or gaming group to do any sort of playtesting of it. Plus, everyone in my game uses the character builder (either online or offline) and I wouldn't have this system added into that. They all use the CB because their character then imports directly into my initiative tracker pretty easily! But anyway, I like the idea and maybe I'll hit the lottery and can quit my job and have all kinds of time for gaming!