>game uses a "magic point" system or a vancian system

As opposed to?

OP, tell us some stories about your group and the fun you've had playing RPGs with them.

I bet you have a lot of stories!

>>44797330
Fatigue, ritual, life.

>>44797423
I could dig ritual magic. Fatigue is also okay. Casting from life doesn't jive well with me; makes the squishy wizards even frailer than usual.

>>44799912
>Casting from life doesn't jive well with me
Never played the game, but my friend told me about a system when magic feeds off of your body, aging you.

In general I just hate Vancian and MP because it makes it feel like a game. Fatigue is great because you never know when you'll end up out of energy, each spell just increases the chance of draining you.

>>44797423
>>44799912

I'm a fan of fatigue magic, but what exactly is ritual magic?

>>44799967
>ritual magic?
Spells take time and/or materials, not energy to cast.

>>44800041

So, vancian?

>>44800248
No. Time as in hours, maybe days. Materials as in things you need to collect, buy, or harvest, not some shit in a pouch that costs a fraction of anything useful.

True that some Vancian systems have these sorts of spells, but this is the norm now.

How about this:

You have a magic instability determined by stats and skills. As you cast spells your instability increases. It decreases over time.

If your instability goes over your limit random bad shit can start to happen. The further you go the worse it gets.

A talented caster could use weak spells all day without becoming unstable. A novice might destabilize after one moderately powerful spell.

File: aa.jpg (12KB, 263x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 263x200px

>>44797330
>true name magic
>contagious magic
>ritual magic
>alchemy
>magical music
>theurgy

C'mon, read more folklore

>>44800248

Not really. Vancian is 'You prep this and then expend it quickly whenever you want'.

Ritual is more 'You can do anything you know how to do but it's going to take quite a while and likely a good amount of materials so you can't just sling spells'

>>44800280
It would allow weaker casters to still use powerful magic, if they're willing to risk rolling on a mishap table (with their surplus instability added to the roll)

>>44800280
This sounds like what I've heard of the Witcher's spell system.

I prefer Power Point/Spell Point systems. I dislike "risky" magic, but I also like to keep magic users restricted to lightning bolts and fireballs and such as opposed to world breaking shit.

>>44800272
>>44800302

I see, so with magic like that most offensive spells would be out wouldn't they? No one is going to stand still for 20 minute so you can fireball them.

>>44800300
I was asking to prompt OP to provide more than a single line of text and a pepe image.

>>44797330
The roll to cast includes a chance for the spell to fail or go horribly wrong.

The spells are balanced compared to non-casters so that the caster can fire off spells as often as the melee guy can hit things with his weapon.

Magic is only useful for buffs. You still need someone good with weapons to do the killing, magic merely makes them better at it.

>>44800041
One annoyance about just using time for casting spells is that sitting there casting the spell is boring for the player because their turn consists of "I continue the ritual to cast the spell".

Though I've seen that mitigated by dividing the ritual steps into individual actions. For example, a minor spell requires a 3 action cycle to keep casting it:
- One action to exhaust an ability to ready the spell.
- One action to cast the spell (unless using it as a counter attack).
- One action to refresh the ability so it can be used again.
Bigger spells involved readying a basic spell, then converting it to a bigger spell. So it gave a more ritualistic feel than just spending x turns casting. It also means each action gives the player a choice between reading a bigger spell, casting what they have or doing something else.

In the homebrew I'm developing, magic is free to cast at any time, but every time you cast it you roll on a table to see how much supernatural attention the spell just drew to you with higher level spells bringing your existence to the attention of more dangerous entities.

>>44800300
Do tell how those options will be mechanically implemented in an easy to understand format that is also setting agnostic.

>>44800363
Why? It's supposed to spark interesting discussion and argument
>>44800409
>Do tell how those options will be mechanically implemented in an easy to understand format that is also setting agnostic
Why agnostic? Different games require different features

>>44800326
Let's take a look at young Tommy Transmuter. He has studied his masters teachings and learned how to cast polymorph. This is an advanced spell, well beyond his ability to cast.

Tommy encounters Biff the Barbarian and Sally the Seductress. Tommy really likes Sally, but Biff won't let him talk to her. He decides to impress Sally by turning Biff into a newt.

Tommy can only take 10 points of instability, but the powerful polymorph spell causes 15. He casts the spell, destabilizes, and rolls for a mishap. Sorry Tommy, you need to add 5 to that roll.

Tommy rolls "Additional Target" on the table, which causes the nearest valid target to also struck by the spell. Because he wasn't casting it on himself, he's the nearest valid target.

Tommy the newt is being bullied by Biff the newt...

>>44800497
>Why agnostic? Different games require different features
The systems need to be mechanically sound no matter what setting they're implemented in.

D&D 5e's magic works in custom worlds of a DMs design, not just Forgotten Realms, the default setting.

>>44800548
>D&D 5e's magic works in custom worlds of a DMs design, not just Forgotten Realms, the default setting.
So long as you build your setting to have Vancian magic.

If you build your world for any other option, D&D stops working, but starts working for something else.

D&D isn't really universal, it's just genericized. We look at D&D and see the elements of it as being a staple of fantasy. If we did that with an entirely different system from the get-go, the largest majority of games would be far different from what they are today.

>>44800612
>So long as you build your setting to have Vancian magic.

No, D&D magic and Vancian magic are different. D&D was inspired by Vancian magic, but D&D magic is is mainly a mechanic, Vancing magic is a depiction, akin to mystical mathematics that burn themselves into the brain, where even the most powerful wizards can memorize four spells or so. D&D magic is a mechanical abstraction.

>>44800548
>D&D 5e's magic works in custom worlds of a DMs design
If the DM designs them with D&D magic in mind. For example, the DM needs to consider the effects that resurrection magic has on the setting.

>>44800741
The DM can, for example, remove ressurection spells from the lists without breaking anything mechanically, if his world doesn't have ressurection magic.

>>44800667
>No, D&D magic and Vancian magic are different.
No they aren't. Dying Earth Magic is Dying Earth Magic. Vancian Magic is tabletop game magic inspired by Vance's Dying Earth, which uses spell slots.

People have referred to D&D as having Vancian magic forever, so they can keep it. Sounds stupid, anyways.

Dumb frogposter

>>44800378
>Though I've seen that mitigated by dividing the ritual steps into individual actions
This works best if your spells are modularly based on those actions, so you can adjust a spell mid-way through and add metamagic actions. So,
1. "I light a candle to open my spirit-invoking spell"
2. "I perform the damage-enhancing prana to double HP damage"
3. "I channel the power of AIR to make my attack lightning-based
4. "I cast mage-blast to fry his soul with hella lightning"

>>44800790
We'll have to disagree on nomenclature, but the argument remains the same.

>>44800350

>spirit bomb

>>44797310
>the number of spells you can cast is equal to the number you know
>you get spells back after taking an hour's rest (maybe a little more)
>all spells are quite useful and of roughly equal strength
>casters learn maybe a dozen spells in their lifetime
Why don't more games do this?

>>44800548
>D&D 5e's magic works in custom worlds of a DMs design
If the DM designs a world to use D&D's magic, anyway.

>>44799948
>In general I just hate Vancian and MP because it makes it feel like a game.
>feel like a game
>game

You do know what the G in RPG stands for right?

>>44800350
Depends on what you mean by "offensive" and what your target is. If you're trying to siege a fort, that fort is going to have a hard time running away. If you're trying to lay waste to an army that's coming to your fort, they're not running away either. If you're trying to kill one man who's standing in front of you, then it would be more efficient to put some steel through his gut. It's not bad for melee and magic to have different utilities.

>>44800887
>We'll have to disagree on nomenclature
You're going to disagree with the way that the language has been used for 40+ years?

Do you also think that people should stop using "you" and bring back "thou"?

>>44800409
>how those options will be mechanically implemented
True Name: You can pay for the true names of certain servants (demons, elementals, people) at character creation. The rest must be obtained through play, or with DM's permission, purchased with experience as a result of down-time activities.
Contagious: I don't know what this is.
Ritual: The same way it's already been done in lots of games.
Alchemy: Like Ars Magica but with materials.
Music: Buffs and shit, you learn a song, or you learn elements and compose songs, and you can play them whenever.
Theurgy: This is super non-specific so I don't know what he means.
>that is also setting agnostic
Having magic at all is already not setting agnostic. Best you can do is offer multiple solutions and let people jut not use the ones that don't fit. It's gonna be a lot better than D&D's "everything must be vancian" at least.

My DM's homebrew system uses a Magic Words system.

Basically, depending on your primary gimmick, you know a certain amount of words. Let's say for example, you know 5 words, and you have Gravity, Push, Flora, Fire, and Area.

So you could make a number of spells from each of those.

>Fire, Area: AoE fire spell
>Gravity, Push: Force Push
>Fire, Flora: Conjure flaming plants
>Gravity, Flora, Area: Cause plants in an area to be pulled towards a point.

Then you rolla Magnitude Die, which is a 1d6 by default, and can go up to 1d10.

>1: Spell backfires
>2-3: Spell fizzles
>4-5: Weak spell
>6-7: Good Spell
>8-9: Damn that's a great spell
>10: WHAT HAVE YOU DOOOONE

How many words you know depends on your primary casting type.

Wizard casters get less words, but have access to all of them all the time.

Sorcerer casters get way more, but have 2 words, and then a card deck of words, and only have about 2-3 word cards in hand at a time. Basically Sorcerers are more versatile, but also more unpredictable.

>>44801107
Herp, forgot to actually explain how to use the words.

Easily really. Take 2-3 words you want to use and put them together to try to create a spell effect. What exactly happens is up to the DM though.

>>44801107
Isn't that just Mosaic?

>>44801179
Not familiar with Mosaic.

>>44800887

Dude, you're literally arguing with Gary Gainax on nomenclature - spells slots = vancian magic, as opposed to Powerpoint system or "narrative magic" or whatever you want to call Mage style of "I can always magic to a set amount, and only circumstances can stop me."

>>44801194
I don't care? Argument still remains the same.

>>44801189
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Setting:Mosaic/Mechanics

>>44801255
I'll take a closer look at that a bit later.

>>44801143
Player-accessed system that rely on GM Fiat to work aren't good systems.

>not using arithmagic where you force players to solve math equations in order to cast spells

>>44801346
Meant more of extra effects. The spells always deal an amount of damage based on the result of the magnitude die.

Haven't run into any issues yet, since I always explained what I'm going for when using a spell, and he's never interpreted in different ways.

The word system is also how magic items work. Add magic words to an item(and expend some amount of magical resource, depends on setting/what you're using) to make it magic. As a standard, effects added to deal extra damage do 1d4 damage a hit, and up to 2 damage adding effects can be on an item at a time.

>>44800347
>I want my magic users exactly like a videogame, absolutely nothing interesting allowed

Enchanting niggas, shaping stone, building illusions, that's the fun shit, not some fagball.

>>44800300
True name magic and contagious magic are good in principle but they can be difficult to manage and easy to break. However, both are good tools to integrate storytelling and gameplay.

Alchemy in a classic sense is less magic, more potions. Not bad, but not really magical. Integration with inventory management and prep time keeps things like Potion of Str+2 from getting too out of hand. Spiritual alchemy also doesn't jive well with tabletop settings in general. Not enough outward effect for a strictly magical class but it could sit well as a Monk, Cleric, or Paladin supplement. FMA-style alchemy is basically The Last Airbender minus the martial arts and no element restrictions. Hilarious fun if done right.

Magical music makes every character part bard. I feel neutral about this but I do like that it would mesh with background music very well.

>>44800515
>Tommy rolls "Additional Target" on the table
>Destabilizing causes a potentially helpful effect.
Seriously, what happens if he was casting Make Really Buff or some shit?

>>44797423
>Fatigue
>life
Oh you mean something represented by LIMITED NUMBERS OF POINTS?

>>44799948
Do you know where Vancian magic came from?

>>44804342
>limited number of points

Not in all systems, you're showing your inexperience.

>>44803578
He could potentially make himself or his enemy really buff. If he rolled that on a fireball he'd straight up explode.

I threw that out as an example by the way, don't read too much into it.

>>44804439
Wouldn't having a few possibly beneficial effects (no guaranteed beneficial effects) get players to try doing risky things as opposed to just never going over their limit?

>>44799948
>Fatigue is great because you never know when you'll end up out of energy, each spell just increases the chance of draining you.
That's not the fatigue system I'm familiar with. GURPS or Dominions both give you points of fatigue so you still know.

>>44808053
I'm guessing it's more of a d100 roll-over type of deal? Where spellcasting is one of several things that can add to your fatigue total, and if you fail the check you suffer a miscast?

>>44804962
I see nothing wrong with that, personally.

>game uses both a rolling to cast spells on niggas system AND a magic point system

The magic system of Fantasy Craft was the worst part about it to be entirely candid. You could hardly do anything fun with how restrictive the spells were in duration or effect, you couldn't just focus into damage and go full blasting on niggas with some of the martials making you useless in that same respect. The buffs weren't even that good, I guess dual-casting haste was as much use I was to my (min-maxed out the ass) fellows at a certain point but it sure felt kinda shitty to throw out two maximized fireballs a turn (and suck up all my resources in doing so) for a few turns and still get handily out-damaged.

Dunno what the fuck a mage is supposed to do in that system, but at least I was a giant and could casually carry a cannon around if my shitty BAB let me get a lucky hit or two, I guess?

Also fuck enemies not having HP. "I'll just roll to see if mooks die hurr hurr" what an absolute crock of a system. You could expend actual limited effort or not at all and the end result would still be left up to a fucking die roll.

File: Feel.png (53KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 645x773px

I'm trying desperately to create a magic system I actually like. Familia.

Anyone else feel this way? None of them are quite good enough, or gameable enough, to suite my purposes.

File: Wizard.gif (12KB, 299x417px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 299x417px

I'm not the most creative guy around, but sometimes I enjoy the idea of making alternate magic systems.

Can anyone rate these?

>A
Magic system based entirely on enchanting items. Magic is a bit like radiation and magical objects exude it. Every spell is used via an item; you put ranged spells on wands or small stones you can throw. You put a healing spell on a scroll that can be read to your ally or touch them with a magic feather. Many items that are used are symbolic; you put a light spell in a crystal. To run fast, you use a horse's tail, etc. Some more immediate kinds of magic can be used by sketching magical symbols onto floors and objects, and for instance you could create an object that gives you a certain amount of usefulness as instant magic instead. Such as a magic flask that makes water within it turn to superheated steam, released as a jet attack when released.

>B
Magic is calling the names and powers of entities and things from the spirit world. Unlike other forms of similar magic, the entities don't necessarily KNOW they are being channeled, because the Wizard is but a tiny insect drinking from the ocean of their power, but if the Wizard drinks too deeply it can cause the entity to take notice. I'm not usually a fan of this kind of magic, I feel it robs Wizards of their personal power and growth (since it all comes from entities) but this method is an alternate that makes sense to me.

>C
Magic is a weird form of meta-reality; anything you've personally seen, experienced or done can be put into magic. If you see a man on fire, screaming in agony then you can do the same to someone else, because you've SEEN it. This concept also goes to the imagination but its much harder, hence really strange and fantastic events and objects, like boiling rain or dragons, are much more magically difficult then simple manipulations of luck and real world concepts.

>D
All of the above?

>>44797310
What's the matter?
In my 5e homebrew each class gets Magic points the same way they get Hp.
Each class has a dice for it.
Sorc gets the highest with d12
Wizards, Druids, Bards and Monks are on pair with each other (yes i replace ki with it suck it) in the mid tier with a d10
And EK, Arcane trickster, Warlock, Pally and Cleric get a d8.
Every other non-caster class is a d4.

>>44809676
>a dice
a die
>Sorc
Sorcerer
>on pair
on par
>i
I
>Pally
Paladin
>>>/global/rules/6

>>44809698
Thank you for correcting me.
My English grammar skills are kind of lacking considering it's my fourth language.

File: what the fug spurdo.png (5KB, 168x196px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 168x196px

>>44809676

I'm not saying your homebrew is bad, but I'm a little confused about how you decided your numbers.

Like why is cleric, who is essentially a super magical priest guy, have the same mana points as a paladin, who are usually seen as a stronger at fighting but weaker at magic style cleric?

Why are Monks and Bards, who are halfway caster classes, get more mana then a Warlock which is essentially a full caster?

Blease eggslpain.

>Using magic, period.

>>44809715
Source of magic dude.

Monks, wizards, bards and druids train and use their own magic source.

Sorcerers are natural born caster.

Paladins, Clerics and Warlocks are channeling magic from an outside source. And the others are devoting only half their training to magic.
Warlocks and clerics however get to expand their magic die when they get an ASI and they can give up 1 point to get a higher magic die instead (from d8 to d10 and from d10 to d12 at a different ASI).

>>44804380
>Do you know where Vancian magic came from?
Pretty sure it's Piers Anthony.

>>44809761

It doesnt really make sense that way either. By that logic, Monk's who cultivate their inner magic entirely through themselves would be higher on their mana dice and druids who get their power from nature should be down with clerics. It's very illogical.

>>44801194
>Gary Gainax

>>44800741
>the DM needs to consider the effects that resurrection magic has on the setting.

unless he is doing hard fantasy genre (a thing that is even less used than hard scifi), nope he doenst need.

>>44799912
Who says wizards have to be any squishier than anybody else? Just because D&D decided they have to have fewer hit points doesn't mean that every other system must do the same.

>>44801086
>True Name: You can pay for the true names of certain servants (demons, elementals, people) at character creation. The rest must be obtained through play, or with DM's permission, purchased with experience as a result of down-time activities.

With true name he is problable talking about the d&d one truenamer.
-Just verbal components
-no mana but each extra time you cast the spell on the same day decrease your chance to cast it (just for the day)

>>44797310
I never liked those dumb "Magic randomly backfires and fucks you over" systems a lot of people advocate here, simply because they make magic not worth it. It's not fun to have your character and their concept destroyed so easily at a single roll, especially when no other class has to. Unless it's a setting where you're meant to be getting killed a lot, like Dark Heresy, in which case it's fine.

But really, it's all a matter of taste. There's no reason to say other people can't like this kind of thing, even if I loathe it utterly.

>>44800409
>ritual magic
do specific actions in a specific order and the magic will be cast without fail. No mana needed. On some implementation of this magic system, casting magic is a non 100% literal way will cast a spell that is a little different or will have the thing have a chance to fail.
This is sort of not dependent on magic, skill, imagine someone memorising how to turn on a plane, no matter what his flying skill are he will be able to turn on the plane (flying is another thing). So if someone memorise a ritual and to it in a 100% literal way it wont fail.
>alchemy
Mixing stuff can have not only soft scifi results but magical stuff.

>theurgy
follow what god say or help him and he will help your giving you magical powers or helping you in specific situations.

>contagious magic
dont know what is that. Maybe some x-men version of magic. Some monsters can do magical stuff without learning magic, so you could have some sort of mutation occur on specific humans that allow them to do specific magical stuff.

>truename magic
This is related to the name of things, can have magic points. But many times its just a verbal only version of ritual magic.


>magical music
ritual magic but with only a musical component

there is also
>'genie' magic
You have a genie, and you ask him to cast stuff for you.