In GURPS Magic for 4th edition you can do 1d6 per level of magical aptitude for upto three seconds for a pretty hefty 9 dice for most player character mages.  Better for higher tech games but not so much for lower powered fantasy.

In third edition you maxed out at 3d period but I increased it by the skill level casting cost discount so you could do 4d at skill 15 and so forth.

Quote from: Kage2020 on November 26, 2023, 04:52:15 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 26, 2023, 09:13:01 AM
As for armor, IIRC GURPS has plenty of mind -affecting spells... in a world with guns, this might be more useful than fireballs.

Yep, totally correct. But as as above, and especially in some settings, nothing feels better than throwing a power bolt and, ala The Covenant, crushing vehicles.

I didn't like standard magic in GURPS 3rd edition, though I have little experience with the 4th edition. (My 4th ed games were customized and didn't use standard magic.) In 3rd, there were a lot of places where it seemed dominated by odd corner conditions, like a few spells that could be incredibly powerful when bought up to skill 20 or higher. Also, the prerequisite system leads to a long list of little-used spells that the player doesn't really want, though they could come in useful occasionally. I found this overcomplicated, and would prefer to just pay more for more useful spells.

That said, I did like the magic system in GURPS Voodoo a lot. It had some issues in implementation, but it was extremely flavorful and interesting, far moreso than the standard magic.

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 01:15:13 AM
That said, I did like the magic system in GURPS Voodoo a lot. It had some issues in implementation, but it was extremely flavorful and interesting, far moreso than the standard magic.

My general stance when it comes to the "standard magic" system is that it's not the standard magic system and, like Fight Club, one doesn't talk about the standard magic system.

Well that's the real issue with D&D "Magic" writ-large - it's a hodgepodge of collected rules exceptions with 50+ years of uncontrolled growth, with little context to these spells to their respective settings. There have been attempts to "normalize" spells across Greyhawk and Realms spells, but for the most part it's been "anything goes".

What needs to happen is the GM (because WotC will never do it) has to establish what, precisely, they want magic to do and how they want spellcasters to engage with magic itself. It's more than just saying "Vancian Magic" sucks, because it exists as an artifact of its time in relation to the system that birthed it.

It's not enough to say "we want utility" - we need to specify as much as possible what that utility is. Because when we say "utility" we're talking about the beefy rules-exceptions that people love/hate.

We want magic to - Blast, Defend. There should be an solid established scaling principle to this that is bound to the non-itemized progression of non-casters. This is tricky because this calls for a re-examination of the HP system and progression in terms of what you as a GM want in the system.

Personally I think if you're going to create a "core group" of spells for D&D, there should be an accepted batch of spells that fall across all schools of magic that are balanced internally against the rest of the system as much as possible. Note: I'm not saying balance for the purposes of homogeneity across the board, I'm saying that the math expressions of these "core spells" based across attach/defense/utility need to interact with the core task resolutions of the rest of the system (not necessarily other class abilities directly).

How would this be expressed? Depends. By keeping Spell Levels, that *could* be the indicator of Spell Point cost. This assumes that you've integrated scaling of those Spells as I indicated above. The benefit to this pre-calculation design is that it means players don't have to do any calculation at the table. All spells of <X> level cost their Spell level in Spellpoints. The alternative is that you figure out those algorithms (like in many systems) where each iteration of that effect costs <X> (like 1 Spell point per d6 of damage) and you indicate what level you're casting the spell at. This is not a big deal, except where you're also forced to calculate Range, Area of Effect, etc. which is where those friction points are in such systems.

Another way to help mitigate this is by keeping numbers *low*. D&D "typically" uses a d6/lvl as its scaling mechanism. The problem in later editions is that HP values have increased dramatically compared to earlier editions. I think most people don't even see this is an issue - most GM's see the problem of Save or Suck mechanics, which 5e has mitigated somewhat... but it's still unsatisfactory.

Savage Worlds has very low numbers (and it doesn't use HP at all - so that's a huge help). Damage is typically 2d6 with more d6's based on good rolls (or you power up your spells for more Spell points), but rarely if ever higher than 5d6.

Talislanta has static HP (unless you play 3e which is 2hp/level). They give you all the algorithms for their spells upfront so you can customize your spells for your caster and school specifically.

Fantasy Craft, which is a d20 system (3.x) makes spells cost Spell Points equal to the Spell's Level. However they cooked down the spells into specific algorithms that also requires a skill check (as a balancing lever against the LFQM issue). All spells conform to specific bounded values for Distance, Duration, Area Effect, etc. For example:

DISTANCE
This is the maximum distance at which the effect may be placed.

Personal: The effect happens at the caster.
Touch: The effect happens at a character or object the caster touches.
Close: The effect may happen at any distance up to 50 ft. from the caster.
Local: The effect may happen at any distance up to 250 ft. from the caster.
Remote: The effect may happen at any distance up to 1,000 ft. from the caster.
Unlimited: The effect may happen anywhere in the caster's current setting (per the GM).
Short Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 50 ft. away.
Medium Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 250 ft. away.
Long Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 1,000 ft. away.

When a spell is used to attack (e.g. "Touch attack" or "Long range attack"), the Spellcasting result is also the attack result.
Spell attacks that inflict damage share the Spellcasting check's threat range. Ranged spell attacks are subject to deviation

Each spell will have one of these specific values for each dimension. So it's pretty much fire and forget Spell points system that emulates what I consider core PHB spells.

I use these as examples that tackled the 'Vancian System' directly. In order to fully replace it in D&D, you'd have to be prepared to do a lot of elbow-grease. And I think it's a worthy effort if you're committed to playing d20.

Quote from: tenbones on November 26, 2023, 11:14:26 PM
Except you're citing the narrative reason why "Vancian Magic" as a system works. It is a mechanic that is used in wargaming - and they slapped the narrative on top of it. It says nothing about the quality of the mechanic today. Hence the point of the thread.

I might be misunderstanding, but what Wargame uses Vancian magic? Im pretty sure even Chainmail didnt

Quote from: Slambo on November 27, 2023, 12:04:29 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 26, 2023, 11:14:26 PM
Except you're citing the narrative reason why "Vancian Magic" as a system works. It is a mechanic that is used in wargaming - and they slapped the narrative on top of it. It says nothing about the quality of the mechanic today. Hence the point of the thread.

I might be misunderstanding, but what Wargame uses Vancian magic? Im pretty sure even Chainmail didnt

He's referring to the ammo mechanic for some of the heavier unit options, most notably tanks and artillery.

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Slambo on November 27, 2023, 12:04:29 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 26, 2023, 11:14:26 PM
Except you're citing the narrative reason why "Vancian Magic" as a system works. It is a mechanic that is used in wargaming - and they slapped the narrative on top of it. It says nothing about the quality of the mechanic today. Hence the point of the thread.

I might be misunderstanding, but what Wargame uses Vancian magic? Im pretty sure even Chainmail didnt

He's referring to the ammo mechanic for some of the heavier unit options, most notably tanks and artillery.

Oh okay, i see, so i did misunderstand. I havent actually played a wargame with an ammo mechanic either but i don't play any historical wargames.

Quote from: Slambo on November 27, 2023, 04:00:24 PM

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Slambo on November 27, 2023, 12:04:29 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 26, 2023, 11:14:26 PM
Except you're citing the narrative reason why "Vancian Magic" as a system works. It is a mechanic that is used in wargaming - and they slapped the narrative on top of it. It says nothing about the quality of the mechanic today. Hence the point of the thread.

I might be misunderstanding, but what Wargame uses Vancian magic? Im pretty sure even Chainmail didnt

He's referring to the ammo mechanic for some of the heavier unit options, most notably tanks and artillery.

Oh okay, i see, so i did misunderstand. I havent actually played a wargame with an ammo mechanic either but i don't play any historical wargames.

You should definitely try it out.  Odds are, you'll get trashed in you first game but HWG dudes tend to be chill and will be happy to help you learn to play and improve your strategies.

Quote from: tenbones on November 26, 2023, 11:14:26 PM
Except you're citing the narrative reason why "Vancian Magic" as a system works.

That was in response to your point about caring about what the rules represent.

QuoteIt is a mechanic that is used in wargaming - and they slapped the narrative on top of it.

They also used dice, pencils, and referees in wargames and they played at a table. The fact a thing happened in wargames is apropos of nothing.

QuoteIt says nothing about the quality of the mechanic today. Hence the point of the thread.

I can tell you about the quality of the mechanic. It's great. If we're deviating from that point, it's only because you're grasping for reasons to avoid facing the fact that people actually like the mechanic. It's not just a matter of brand loyalty. It is a good mechanic.

QuoteIs that optimal gaming for you? No. You said it yourself.

Actually, I didn't say that. I said in my favorite system, where any kind of magic at all is possible, in actual play ends up looking close enough to the "Vancian" system that I wonder if it would just be better to just do that in the first place, trimming the fringe optionality in exchange for simplicity. As in it's possible that the Vancian system might actually be the one for "optimal gaming."

Out of all the games I frequently play (obviously these are only those I like), I can't say any of the magic systems, "Vancian" included, stand out as obviously better or obviously worse than the others. So when someone insists that it's obvious, not even controversial, that it is somehow an outdated throwback system that only exists out of brand loyalty and was merely wargaming with a slap-on narrative, that just strikes me as an extremely ignorant position to hold. It's possible to dislike something and still be aware of and honest about its merits.

QuoteYou just want to be right about something? Or you're more interested in telling someone they're wrong, even though you agree with them in order to make it sound like you have something to say. LOL Grow up.

Sounds like confession through projection.

Are you still arguing with yourself? Carry on brave soldier!

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 02:20:39 AM
Are you still arguing with yourself? Carry on brave soldier!

I'm pretty sure he's just high from trying to smell his own farts (believing them to be flower-scented).

D&D Vancian is great at being D&D Vancian. It fails at trying to emulate any other magic system.

As to how beloved and easy and intuitive Vancian is... even the 5e D&D movie didn't use it (and they even used item Attunement as a plot point) even with a climactic sorcerer vs. wizard duel at the end.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 28, 2023, 08:54:29 AM
D&D Vancian is great at being D&D Vancian. It fails at trying to emulate any other magic system.

    Which makes it perfect for what D&D has become since WotC took over--a self-referential, self-important, self-devouring ouroboros of a game.

Yeah it's definitely its own thing. Just because I think a mechanic is shitty, and someone happens to like that mechanic, doesn't mean I'm saying that person is a shitty person.

But maybe I'm wrong? LOL

Quote from: tenbones on November 27, 2023, 11:22:29 AM
Well that's the real issue with D&D "Magic" writ-large - it's a hodgepodge of collected rules exceptions with 50+ years of uncontrolled growth, with little context to these spells to their respective settings. There have been attempts to "normalize" spells across Greyhawk and Realms spells, but for the most part it's been "anything goes".

What needs to happen is the GM (because WotC will never do it) has to establish what, precisely, they want magic to do and how they want spellcasters to engage with magic itself. It's more than just saying "Vancian Magic" sucks, because it exists as an artifact of its time in relation to the system that birthed it.

It's not enough to say "we want utility" - we need to specify as much as possible what that utility is. Because when we say "utility" we're talking about the beefy rules-exceptions that people love/hate.

We want magic to - Blast, Defend. There should be an solid established scaling principle to this that is bound to the non-itemized progression of non-casters. This is tricky because this calls for a re-examination of the HP system and progression in terms of what you as a GM want in the system.

Personally I think if you're going to create a "core group" of spells for D&D, there should be an accepted batch of spells that fall across all schools of magic that are balanced internally against the rest of the system as much as possible. Note: I'm not saying balance for the purposes of homogeneity across the board, I'm saying that the math expressions of these "core spells" based across attach/defense/utility need to interact with the core task resolutions of the rest of the system (not necessarily other class abilities directly).

How would this be expressed? Depends. By keeping Spell Levels, that *could* be the indicator of Spell Point cost. This assumes that you've integrated scaling of those Spells as I indicated above. The benefit to this pre-calculation design is that it means players don't have to do any calculation at the table. All spells of <X> level cost their Spell level in Spellpoints. The alternative is that you figure out those algorithms (like in many systems) where each iteration of that effect costs <X> (like 1 Spell point per d6 of damage) and you indicate what level you're casting the spell at. This is not a big deal, except where you're also forced to calculate Range, Area of Effect, etc. which is where those friction points are in such systems.

Another way to help mitigate this is by keeping numbers *low*. D&D "typically" uses a d6/lvl as its scaling mechanism. The problem in later editions is that HP values have increased dramatically compared to earlier editions. I think most people don't even see this is an issue - most GM's see the problem of Save or Suck mechanics, which 5e has mitigated somewhat... but it's still unsatisfactory.

Savage Worlds has very low numbers (and it doesn't use HP at all - so that's a huge help). Damage is typically 2d6 with more d6's based on good rolls (or you power up your spells for more Spell points), but rarely if ever higher than 5d6.

Talislanta has static HP (unless you play 3e which is 2hp/level). They give you all the algorithms for their spells upfront so you can customize your spells for your caster and school specifically.

Fantasy Craft, which is a d20 system (3.x) makes spells cost Spell Points equal to the Spell's Level. However they cooked down the spells into specific algorithms that also requires a skill check (as a balancing lever against the LFQM issue). All spells conform to specific bounded values for Distance, Duration, Area Effect, etc. For example:

DISTANCE
This is the maximum distance at which the effect may be placed.

Personal: The effect happens at the caster.
Touch: The effect happens at a character or object the caster touches.
Close: The effect may happen at any distance up to 50 ft. from the caster.
Local: The effect may happen at any distance up to 250 ft. from the caster.
Remote: The effect may happen at any distance up to 1,000 ft. from the caster.
Unlimited: The effect may happen anywhere in the caster's current setting (per the GM).
Short Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 50 ft. away.
Medium Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 250 ft. away.
Long Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 1,000 ft. away.

When a spell is used to attack (e.g. "Touch attack" or "Long range attack"), the Spellcasting result is also the attack result.
Spell attacks that inflict damage share the Spellcasting check's threat range. Ranged spell attacks are subject to deviation

Each spell will have one of these specific values for each dimension. So it's pretty much fire and forget Spell points system that emulates what I consider core PHB spells.

I use these as examples that tackled the 'Vancian System' directly. In order to fully replace it in D&D, you'd have to be prepared to do a lot of elbow-grease. And I think it's a worthy effort if you're committed to playing d20.

Already solved by prowlers and paragons.

*All* supers rulesets have solved this problem.

Importing those aspects of any given supers-ruleset into a d20 game will require the same considerations I posted above. Which is why it hinges on the assumption that the GM is committed to playing d20 (for what reason, I don't really care to surmise).

Savage Worlds uses Powers instead of discrete "Vancian" spells, and is closer to a Supers mechanic abstraction. It works very well for the exact same reason.