I've seen folks say they don't like mana point systems but I can't recall them going into details. For those of you that don't like spending mana points to cast spells, why do you dislike this approach? For those who are on the fence, how could mana point systems be implemented so you preferred it?

For me, I dislike the paperwork (keeping track of points, and different points for different spells). I don't dislike the system itself, and in a computer game would be fine with it.

I went with two optional magic systems in my game:

1. a simple, lower powered magic with 5 spells you can use in an encounter until you roll a fumble, and
2. a more complex higher powered magic with more spells and options that allows X spells per encounter. X is kept low (4, 6, 8, 10, or 12) and all spells are 1 point. You can basically use an extra die to track it.

Keeping track of mana points is no more complex than keeping track of hit points. If there is an issue it probably due to some other aspect of the magic system.

Quote from: estar;935406Keeping track of mana points is no more complex than keeping track of hit points. If there is an issue it probably due to some other aspect of the magic system.

Didn't say it was complex, said I disliked the paperwork. There's a difference. Even there, for the most part I reset HPs between encounters in my system.

The problems I have had with mana point systems is the vastly increased flexibility it offers.

For D&D systems, controlling the number of spells the magician has access to is key. With a mana point system, magicians are able to cast more lower level spells and fewer higher level spells than the "Vancian norm". However, their ability to either cast multiples of the same spell in a day, or being able to cast from any of their "problem solvers" as needed (knock, levitate, charm person, &c.) gives them a disproportionate power.

As a proof of that, look at the number of different spells vs. spells per day of the 3.X magician and sorcerer.

Edit: As I recall, we used Class Level x 2 = Mana Points, Spell Level x 2 = Mana Cost, +X mana for high attributes (1-6?). It was pretty simple. Spell storage items always stored specific spells, never raw mana.

Quote from: Baron Opal;935408The problems I have had with mana point systems is the vastly increased flexibility it offers.

For D&D systems, controlling the number of spells the magician has access to is key. With a mana point system, magicians are able to cast more lower level spells and fewer higher level spells than the "Vancian norm". However, their ability to either cast multiples of the same spell in a day, or being able to cast from any of their "problem solvers" as needed (knock, levitate, charm person, &c.) gives them a disproportionate power.

As a proof of that, look at the number of different spells vs. spells per day of the 3.X magician and sorcerer.

Edit: As I recall, we used Class Level x 2 = Mana Points, Spell Level x 2 = Mana Cost, +X mana for high attributes (1-6?). It was pretty simple. Spell storage items always stored specific spells, never raw mana.

Instead of Mana Point systems, I prefer a drain system like Shadowrun.  If you carefully control the power you put into spells, and have certain items, skills, etc to mitigate drain, you could cast all day long, or you could cast one Hellblast that could knock you unconscious.

I think the thing that bugs me about magic point system is that it is too reliable and pat.  Sure spell slots are reliable, but they require planning and forethought.  MPs allow you maximum flexibility.  Some games get around this through skill rolls to cast, so you could fail and lose MP (crit fail), fail and not lose, cast and spend or cast and not spend(crit cast).  Then you at least have some uncertainty to go along with the flexibility.

So I guess you need to cut back either the flexibility or the certainty and not have high levels of both.

One thing I like about spell slots and levels is they serve as partitions -- you get X 1st level spells, and Y 2nd level spells. And even if magic missile is your favorite 1st level spell, it's probably not the best option (even if it's allowed) in a 2nd level slot. So it encourages players to have a repertoire of different spells.

Whereas spell points encourage players to always spam the best spell. Fireball, fireball, fireball until out of points; instead of fireball, magic missile, web.

I like the idea that spells cost HP, actually, but through ritual, preparation, a good staff or wand and special components, a spellcaster can reduce the cost significantly (even to zero).

Just an idea. I'm not a game designer and I suck at math.

What about the mechanics of 3e Expanded Psionics? I believe they tried to leverage that as their optional spellpoint system in 3e later? You have "spells" but your points you pump into the "spell" increases/expands the effects. This allows for dynamic scaling that the standard D&D Vancian rules keeps locked down by level/slot.

Benefits of spellpoints system are scalability and flexibility.

Downsides are scalability and flexibilty. Unless the "spells" are balanced in values in relation to the scaling factor, it's very easy for a caster to be a little too good. It's actually one of the conceits about 3e Psionics that I felt made sense vs. wizards in that their "spelllist" was far more subdued than the wizard's class. I would *like* to be charitable and say this was done intentionally. But I have no proof of that.

Quote from: Pat;935412Whereas spell points encourage players to always spam the best spell. Fireball, fireball, fireball until out of points; instead of fireball, magic missile, web.

Yes! Need to lift that heavy rock? Fireball! Need to scry what's going on down around the corner? Fireball! Need so fly up to a high ledge to escape a flash flood? Fireball!

Quote from: Simlasa;935422Yes! Need to lift that heavy rock? Fireball! Need to scry what's going on down around the corner? Fireball! Need so fly up to a high ledge to escape a flash flood? Fireball!

100% true.

It's not that I dislike "mana points," it's that I really, really LIKE OD&Ds pseudo-Vancian spell system.  For me the most fun of playing a magic user is trying to figure out what loadout of spells I want for this adventure.

That's why I've never played a magic user past about eighth level; you get too many spell slots and it becomes too easy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;935411I think the thing that bugs me about magic point system is that it is too reliable and pat.  Sure spell slots are reliable, but they require planning and forethought.  MPs allow you maximum flexibility.  Some games get around this through skill rolls to cast, so you could fail and lose MP (crit fail), fail and not lose, cast and spend or cast and not spend(crit cast).  Then you at least have some uncertainty to go along with the flexibility.

I favor using MP, but having rolls to cast which can make spells less reliable and even dangerous (if I want, and I usually do).

You could go the Unisystem/Witchcraft route where the roll is actually to dismiss the spell after it's done... lest it go rogue and keep doing its stuff on random targets.

You could go the DCC route and say failed rolls mean you lose the spell until you can rest/relearn it... and that fumbles bring random horrors... but otherwise you can cast all day long.

You could also be a stickler about the spell components thing... so even if you're not out of MP you still need to find a spider before you can cast Spider Climb.

Quote from: Ashakyre;935403I've seen folks say they don't like mana point systems but I can't recall them going into details. For those of you that don't like spending mana points to cast spells, why do you dislike this approach? For those who are on the fence, how could mana point systems be implemented so you preferred it?

I love mana point systems when done decently.  Seen many, many implementations over the 35+ years gaming; playing spell casters has always been my favorite.  

Mana point systems are a bit more complex than fire-and-forget systems but provide greater flexibility and "feel" more like the magic use most might imagine.  That is the Vanician system is not what most people think of and I don't know if I ever had a player who's actually read Vance's novels.  

The biggest and first problem I've seen is when people try to graph a mana point system onto D&D.  All other failings are just not taking the time to balance the power of a spell against mana point cost and mana point gain per level.

(Problem #1) The problem is when people use mana points for just getting the spell off yet still determine spell power by caster level.  What this does is make higher level casters like machine guns, they can cast many, many low level spells but these spells are all powerful because of the caster level.  

(Answer #1A) The answer I found, and in the end it works with AD&D modules very well, is to make spell power dependent on mana points and not level AND to make the cost of casting a spell non-linear with spell level AND to make higher level spells have a more powerful base effect.

(Answer #1B) A successful mana point system really needs playtesting and/or truly running the numbers to ensure the balance you want between choosing a low level versus high level spell.  (Took me about a year to figure this out but it can be done as have had a successful system for over 20 years now)   For example, how do you want 8 mana points spent on a 1st level spell (say 2 points to cast the spell and 6 points to increase the power of the spell) to compare to that of a 2nd level spell (say 4 points to cast the spell and 4 points to increase the power of the spell)?  You should also work on making the cost for spell power increments and other things you can power with mana the same as much as possible to simplify bookkeeping.  

A more detailed example with Magic Missile.  Instead of the caster gaining a missile (d4) every so many levels, make the base spell cast 1 missile, and to get extra missiles (a d4) you need to spend mana points.  You can balance this out to act a lot like AD&D by the amount of mana points you give per level.

(Answer #1C) Mana points provide a lot of flexibility and provide an easy way to add in spell failure as opposed to a fire-and-forget system.  Instead of a failure taking away one of a very limited number of spells, you take away mana points.  Likewise now you can have mana potions that restore mana, just like many a computer game. (An aside never have a spell that restores more mana than it cost to cast, EVER).  An added feature of magic items can be the provision of mana.  You can have creatures that eat mana, ones that consume mana to heal, etc.  Many possibilities.

(Answer #1D) How can it work in practice.  I've found you can make a lower level magic user much more viable, both on flexibility and power, while the higher level casters if you just ran the numbers are a less powerful but players never complain as there is flexibility and they can save and expend their power where they wish.  Also, you can allow a bit more spell memorization, as the mana points constrain spell utilization, which makes for more exciting games at low level since they magic user is not a one trick pony.  For example, if you allow a magic user to memorize 3 spells at first level I find you often get a pick of one offensive spell, one defensive and one utility.  They can still only cast one or two spells, but they can choose which.

(Answer #1E)  Lastly, you should really get rid of spells that have a permanent magical effect, such as Continual Light.  I also include spells of such long duration that in effect you can have them on you 24/7 as you can regain mana faster than the spell uses it (unless you prevent normal mana regain while the spell is on).  Any such easy to use permanent effect spell quickly unbalances a game unless you use DM fiat or want magic=technology in your games, then powerful individuals and governments will have a cadre of spell casters casting those spells all day long to light there cities, do construction, feed the household or troops, etc.

Quote from: Tod13;935407Didn't say it was complex, said I disliked the paperwork. There's a difference. Even there, for the most part I reset HPs between encounters in my system.

By point still stands how is mana point any more paperwork than hit points? If it is there then something else involved and that the real problem not the fact that every time you cast a spell you mark down (or add to) a total.