It also builds in my experience into the "Mission Impossible" model of a dungeon expedition; there are various roles and people have at least a basic idea of who can do what.  Thus, a basic part of our tactical thinking was about which of our tools do we use to solve a given situation; spells, swords, other weapons, other magic items for "utility" situations, whatever?  The object was to stay down in the dungeon as long as possible to maximize loot, and thus XP.  So resources were hoarded.  There was no "15 minute adventuring day," because you had to navigate your way IN, and you had to navigate your way OUT.  Wandering monsters and all.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1022052It certainly forces you to think laterally in some situations.

If you more or less leave Cleric and other healers as per standard rules it doesn't matter much because mages will still have to get healed and all, limiting adventuring time. The exception might be necromancers, which actually makes them more useful again.

My goal in contrast to present a fantasy setting that the players can experience while doing interesting. I don't like imposing any type of preconceptions on what the players ought to be doing.  Instead I put thought into what it would be like to live in such a world, work up some cultures, figure the variations, and create the NPCs accordingly.

This includes the system of magic. Over the years, I developed an idea of what magic is capable of and what it isn't. It it aligns somewhat with Gygax's idea as presented in classic D&D but it also influenced by how magic is presented in GURPS Magic. Despite their difference in how characters are setup (spells as skill versus memorization slots) they are not that far apart. D&D style magic tend to be more useful for battlefield, GURPS Magic tends to make the mage a formidable one on one combatant.

I tried alternatives like Ars Magica noun verb system and GURPS Ritual Path Magic but they never jelled the way I wanted too.

Ultimately what I settled on ten years ago was that arcane magic is a learned skill. It works by using will to channel an energy called mana. Arcane spells are cast by performing an elaborate ritual and expending material components.

Divine spells can be cast in the same way. However building their adherent's faith, the gods taught their clerics a series of meditations that allowed the cleric to memorize spells that can be released at a moment's notice. There is a certain amount of skill involved so clerics needs experience (i.e. higher levels) to case more difficult spells like Raise Dead.

It took many generations of advancement in the Arts of Magic until Arcane spellcaster reverse engineered enough to create a memorization system for arcane spells. Thus the modern magic user was born. Along the way several alternate paths were developed that proved to be dead ends.

Hence my rules reflect the details of the above. I have a skill based version in rough drafts for D100, Fudge/Fate, AGE and GURPS.  Of the three the AGE variant is furtherest along. Instead of gain slots as you level, you buy slots as a talent, advantage, etc. And there are rule about how many lower level slots you have to have before buying a higher level slot.

And more recently because of how much I like Adventures in Middle Earth, I am working on a separate low fantasy variant drawing on my experience with GURPS Ritual Path Magic, Ars Magica, and other alternatives I didn't use for the Majestic Wilderlands. Has different assumptions than the above system.

The way to approach any of this to define how magic works in everyday language, make your rules reflect that, playtest, revise, and repeat. What people forget about D&D system of magic, it started as nothing more than a few typewritten pages, and then repeatably pounded on week after week by dozens of players seeking to exploit it to further their own goals in exploring Greyhawk, other dungeons, and the wilderness.

Regardless of you think how magic ought to be, that the crucible that one's idea need to pass. In my Thursday campaign the players are doing some crazy stuff and I will be making revisions for the next campaign.

Quote from: joriandrake;1021988edit: While at it, why shouldn't a mage which actually learns spells not be able to cast spells based on situation like the choice of weaponry for your fighter? How is it logical for a mage to not use an ice spell against a fire elemental or fire spell against a troll only because it wasn't 'prepared', but still having learned it? D&D seems to use the word 'learn' for arcane casters (except if innate magic like for Sorcerers) but at the same time uses their books as the actual source of knowledge which any peasant could open up to cast all those spells from... but still only x amount of spells daily.

It's really quite simple. "Memorisation" is actually "preparation". It takes 15 minutes per spell level to cast a spell, but you can do all the preparation in advance, and then hold the spell ready to release with a relatively fast, simple, final invocation.

So, sure, cast that ice spell on the fire elemental. Take out your spell book and spend the next 75 minutes doing the ritual and whamo, ice spell called upon as required.

Don't use Vancian casting if you don't want to, but it's very, very easy to rationalise in a logical and internally consistent way.

I was very careful not to use the English word of 'memorization' to avoid misunderstanding. The whole comment is only about learned spells vs loaned spells.

Quote from: joriandrake;1022204I was very careful not to use the English word of 'memorization' to avoid misunderstanding. The whole comment is only about learned spells vs loaned spells.

Well, if you're talking about the fact that the books are required, the fact that these things take 15 minutes per level to prepare (10 min/level in 2e) indicates that they're extremely complex. Clearly too complex to prepare without extensive written notes (and possibly there are patterns or symbols written in the spell descriptions that the mage needs to visualise/internalise during the process, or arcane words that simply can't be committed to memory, but need to be read from a written source), and also too complex for someone to simply pick up a book and follow the steps without a great deal of theoretical and practical experience with the workings of magic.

Grimoires (spell books) in Earthdawn have some heavy metaphysics tied to them. When a mage successfully transcribes a spell into their griomoire from another source, it is also imprinted into the mage's astral pattern. The most "vulgar" type of casting is actually just pulling mana through that part of your own astral pattern that represents the spell. This causes mana-burn/astral corruption damage, and a HUGE flare of light in astral space (dinner-bells for curious Horrors).

Enter the Spell Matrix. At fist, it was an astral construct bound to a physical object (ring, wand, etc) and held a single spell. Later magical developments allowed each mage to have a certain number of these complex knots of mana attached to their astral pattern, each holding a condensed copy of any spell they know. Mages with their books at hand and 10 minutes of peace to spare can easily swap any spell known into any Matrix ("slot"). The Spell Matrix acts as an astral filter (for damage) and dampener (for the "light-flare"), allowing safe casting again and again. As mentioned, some spells require extra mana (& Threadweaving tests to provide that mana), before Spellcasting test to see if it affects the target.

In stressful situations, when a mage needs to swap their spells out immediately, it can be attempted by a Threadweaving roll against a higher difficulty number than usual (based on the new spell). If the mage takes damage or is otherwise shocked/disrupted, they must make a Willpower test (against the # of Damage points taken). Failure WIPES all spell matrices, and they cannot be used until the mage has 10 minutes of peace to re-attune them.

Some classes get abilities that mess with spell-matrices, damaging them, or disrupting a spell out of them. The Wizard class also gets spells that directly mess with the "astral background count", i.e. they can channel "static" at other mages to reduce their Spellcasting rolls. Having a slightly more reasonable range of spell effects across the 4 mage classes also helps with this system. And the 4E rules have added "overcharging" spells by weaving an extra thread or two, or additional effects available on really good Spellcasting rolls (these include things like bouncing the lightning-bolt to another target, making a certain # of people in the fireball's target area safe from damage, etc). I really prefer this as a take on the "Vance"-style casting presented in his novels.

Regardless of anything else, there's no way about the fact that letting magic-users pick what they cast on the go, rather than front-loaded, makes them more powerful. The question is whether this turns them too powerful.

Back in my gaming heyday, of the two DM's who were running the majority of the AD&D games in our area, one enforced spell memorization, and one didn't.  In the games that the latter ran, spellcasters definitely had more relative oomph, once you hit about 5th level or so, compared to the ones where you had to pick which spells you had prepared.

When I was getting my game ready, I didn't want to bother with spell memorization, as outside of Vance it didn't really match any of the fiction I had read.  However, I also didn't want spellcasters overpowering non-spellcasters of equivalent level.  My compromise was that any spells cast had to be declared before initiative was rolled (non-spellcasters actions can just be declared when a character's individual initiative comes up), and that the level of the spell acts as a penalty to the spell caster's initiative score (I don't bother with modifiers for most non-spellcasters actions).  These two house rules, along with enforcing any damage taken by the caster prior to the spell going off as disrupting the spell, seems to keep things relatively balanced.

I never thought of the OP's 'system' as a system per se; it is just the default, 'I'm too lazy to keep up with the book keeping' way of playing mages that my group has always fallen back on. I suppose it gives spell casters more power, but if you tend to play low level campaigns that is not such a bad thing.

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1022805Back in my gaming heyday, of the two DM's who were running the majority of the AD&D games in our area, one enforced spell memorization, and one didn't.  In the games that the latter ran, spellcasters definitely had more relative oomph, once you hit about 5th level or so, compared to the ones where you had to pick which spells you had prepared.

When I was getting my game ready, I didn't want to bother with spell memorization, as outside of Vance it didn't really match any of the fiction I had read.  However, I also didn't want spellcasters overpowering non-spellcasters of equivalent level.  My compromise was that any spells cast had to be declared before initiative was rolled (non-spellcasters actions can just be declared when a character's individual initiative comes up), and that the level of the spell acts as a penalty to the spell caster's initiative score (I don't bother with modifiers for most non-spellcasters actions).  These two house rules, along with enforcing any damage taken by the caster prior to the spell going off as disrupting the spell, seems to keep things relatively balanced.

Those are good house rules!

Quote from: RPGPundit;1023178Those are good house rules!

Thanks.  One of the interesting side-effects is that the spellcasters, as they've advanced in level, tend to save their higher level spells either for non-combat situations or for ambushes.  Once they're in the thick of combat they tend to stick to the lower level spells.

That, and because our M-U absolutely hates getting her spells disrupted and losing a spell slot (much more so than the actual taking of damage), she has come to love the Shield spell.

That sounds very Original School to me; the way we played back in the early 70s.

(in terms of "saving big spells for ambush or other desperate situations)

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1023223Thanks.  One of the interesting side-effects is that the spellcasters, as they've advanced in level, tend to save their higher level spells either for non-combat situations or for ambushes.  Once they're in the thick of combat they tend to stick to the lower level spells.

That, and because our M-U absolutely hates getting her spells disrupted and losing a spell slot (much more so than the actual taking of damage), she has come to love the Shield spell.

Well, that's a bonus; it means your players emphasize certain tactics.