Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

[VentilatorOfDoom]

You know I really wouldn't mind if I could decide for myself how to spend my spell power. Casting 30 lvl 3 spells or casting 10 lvl9 spells... whatever you need atm.
Sounds good. But somehow in the CRPGs I played it never worked out that good, as I previously mentioned. But maybe a system like this http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm combined with the KotC-need not prepare spells approach could be interesting. It certainly adds more dynamism and versatility to casters. But I think it will cause additional problems with balancing.

[Archangel]

Arcana Evolved allowed the flexibility I mentioned but they balanced it by removing many more powerful spells and sometimes replacing them with similar weaker versions. Allowing such flexibility does not work with the kind of power D&D high level spells give.

[SkeleTony]

In PnP I always found needing to use Highten spell feat a needles tax on spellcaster. Personally I would allow spells to have that as their feature. If a player is going to using a higher lvl spell slot to cast a weaker spell at least he can get higher DC out of it.

In Arcana Evolved you can exchange one spell slot for 2 one lvl lower level slots. You can also exchange 3 slots for 1 one lvl higher level slot.

This is a BIG improvement over the prior system to be sure and one that I could probably live with(I do after all play many D&D based CRPGs such as TOEE and IWD II and the goldbox games) but it still begs the question of why they don't just go with a spell point based system in the first place? I understand they fear boycotts from the vocal fans but come on...

I think you need to ask Monte Cook that, instead of making wild guesses like you did in all of your posts. Claiming stuff like nobody likes it, or that all designers hate vancian casting is just you talking out of your $#!@.

Wow. Isn't that just a tad absurd and immature guy? I have not spoken to Monte Cook specifically that I remember but before YOU go assuming all manner of crap maybe YOU should talk to some designers off the record and ask them what they think of the Vancian system. You will probably be very surprised from the sound of it. Why do you think they keep announcing that they are changing to a spell-point based system with every edition since AD&D 2nd and only re-neg on this when they get angry letters from kids who do not know about design and do not care about the reasons for changing things? In Dragon Magazine when 2nd Ed. was first announced they had a long-ass article IIRC detailing all sorts of changes including doing away with the Vancian system and then the angry letters came. We all know what became of 2nd ed. after that. And again when 3.5 was released they were publicly stating how they would eventually be making the Unearthed Arcana spell-point system the official magic system eventually and this was one of the major changes listed in their public press releases for 4th ed....then the angry emails and letters came.

Game design is a bit like color theory or music theory or some such. if you don't know why the Vancian system is poor design, even after lengthy explanations, then you probably will not ever get it. Just like someone who cannot see that boy bands are a formulaic and insubstantial musical expression is probably never going to get it and will keep buying whatever tripe is being pushed by MTV.

[SkeleTony]

You know I really wouldn't mind if I could decide for myself how to spend my spell power. Casting 30 lvl 3 spells or casting 10 lvl9 spells... whatever you need atm.
Sounds good. But somehow in the CRPGs I played it never worked out that good, as I previously mentioned. But maybe a system like this http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm combined with the KotC-need not prepare spells approach could be interesting. It certainly adds more dynamism and versatility to casters. But it think it will cause additional problems with balancing.

I knew there were more rational people in here somewhere. This is exactly in line with what I am trying to get across in this thread. Some people get so caught up in being offended by criticism of D&D and defending it like it were their religion and I was some kind of thug looting their sacred temples...

[Archangel]

This is a BIG improvement over the prior system to be sure and one that I could probably live with(I do after all play many D&D based CRPGs such as TOEE and IWD II and the goldbox games) but it still begs the question of why they don't just go with a spell point based system in the first place? I understand they fear boycotts from the vocal fans but come on...

I think you need to ask Monte Cook that, instead of making wild guesses like you did in all of your posts. Claiming stuff like nobody likes it, or that all designers hate vancian casting is just you talking out of your $#!@.

Wow. Isn't that just a tad absurd and immature guy? I have not spoken to Monte Cook specifically that I remember but before YOU go assuming all manner of crap maybe YOU should talk to some designers off the record and ask them what they think of the Vancian system. You will probably be very surprised from the sound of it. Why do you think they keep announcing that they are changing to a spell-point based system with every edition since AD&D 2nd and only re-neg on this when they get angry letters from kids who do not know about design and do not care about the reasons for changing things? In Dragon Magazine when 2nd Ed. was first announced they had a long-ass article IIRC detailing all sorts of changes including doing away with the Vancian system and then the angry letters came. We all know what became of 2nd ed. after that. And again when 3.5 was released they were publicly stating how they would eventually be making the Unearthed Arcana spell-point system the official magic system eventually and this was one of the major changes listed in their public press releases for 4th ed....then the angry emails and letters came.

Game design is a bit like color theory or music theory or some such. if you don't know why the Vancian system is poor design, even after lengthy explanations, then you probably will not ever get it. Just like someone who cannot see that boy bands are a formulaic and insubstantial musical expression is probably never going to get it and will keep buying whatever tripe is being pushed by MTV.

Look you are singing the same song all the time and it is getting tiresome. You make bold claims but with no proof. If you got any links to MOST designers saying what you claim I will read them. If you got a link to a survey about the topic I will read it. If you got links to these claims or spell point for each edition and then quitting on the idea I will be happy to read it. Until then please stop acting like you know everything and we know nothing.

And that comparison with music just shows what kind of a person you are. I do not listen to boybands (or girlbands) but I would not openly like this bash someone who does. Learn respect before you talk to anyone again or you are always going to come out as a sad little person angry at the world.

[Darthcast]

First of all, I don't think "realism" matters one bit. It's really all about gameplay, especially for a game like KoTC. If the game was all about atmosphere and stuff with less focus on the battle system and only few battles... like the Realms of Arkania games eg., then, maybe it would be more important.

All the first RPGs I played were MP-based, and I still like the slot-based (D&D) system. What I really hate though is the memorization part of it. But this is, fortunately, not in KoTC (and will hopefully stay like this ).

I don't get what you all don't like about the Wizardry 8 spell system. For me, it's one of the best ever made. About that leveling skills thing, you really don't need to do that. It's not required at all, I didn't level a single spell or skill the first time I played it, and it wasn't unbalanced or anything. Even if I play it nowadays, the only additional "skill leveling" I do is healing my party members with weak casters after a battle instead of resting etc.

Of course Wiz8 does additionally suffer from stupid design desicions like making the majority of spells useless

I'm really suprised to read that. Seriously.
Which spells are useless in your opinion? I just checked the whole spell list and I used most of them. Some of the spells, like shadow hound (wakes you before enemies are attacking when resting), I used only rarely, but that was because I was too lazy. Most of the other spells I didn't use aren't useless per se either, because I remember enemies (effectively) casting them on me - I guess I just didn't like them.
It's uncommon that mental spells (or spells that inflict negative conditions) where the most effective at the beginning whereas damage dealing spells became a lot stronger at the end - but I liked it.

But maybe which magic system you enjoy depends on how you play your mage. I'm really penny-wise when it comes to spell lots/MP. In most RPG's, I mostly cast spells when really necessary. I often have the feeling I wasted something when I use spells although I could have won the battle without it. It was different in Wizardry 8, because you improve your casting skills when casting.
Actually the system is very similar to the D&D system, just a lot simpler and easier to understand. Instead of D&D spell levels you have magic realms and instead of metamagic feats you adjust the power level of every spell when casting.

[VentilatorOfDoom]

When I said useless I meant that the effects often either wouldn't work or the damage dealt was negligible compared to the HPs of the enemies. I did not mean you'll never actually use the spells, you have no choice after all because there are no other/better spells. Also you say you didn't have to train your skills. Sorry but I didn't do that either the first time I played and everyone except the wizard and cleric (samurai, walküre,ninja) sucked at casting spells. Yeah it's totally cool if you're lvl25 and can cast Acid Bomb securily (without failure) only at lvl2 strength to deal fantastic 1-10 dmg or something like that to your 350+ HP foes. Makes a very *balanced* impression.
Other spells with certain effects, be it death, stun whatever, work sometimes, but the majority of times they fail. At least I got that impression. In DnD you would have spells to prepare, dispels, saving throw decreasing spells or resistance decreasing spells etc. Of course certain disabling spells worked at least somewhat okayish if you could cast them at maximum strength that is, like Web.
After all I think the best spell in this game was the instant kill effect of Monks, Samurais, Ninjas. Kirujitsu or whatever it was called.

[Darthcast]

Okay, I agree that samurai and monks would be too weak at spell casting if you don't level up your skills, but it isn't the case for lord and valkyrie because you need to heal your party after battle anyway and it's no problem to let them do the healing (esp. with the cast repeatedly feature). I never used samurai because I didn't like them, and I never used a spell casting monk because... there's RFS-81. But I think at least monks are strong enough even without/with weak spell casting.
I didn't have the impression spells that inflict negative conditions (like stun) were too weak, I'd rather say they're too strong (at the beginning)... but I liked it that way. It's true that damage dealing spells are weaker than in other RPGs, but they become a lot stronger in late game.

Hm, maybe I just don't like my mages too strong, I also like the spell system in Realms of Arkania, and mages are really weak in these games.

[VentilatorOfDoom]

I'm already seeing where this is heading. It's like that thing Archangel was talking about - that they balanced the spell-point system in Arcana Evolved by making the spells weaker. It's logical if you think about it, like a sorcerer is more powerful as a battle caster than a wizard due to the dynamic casting and metamagic, a caster using that spellpoint method would again gain tremendously in power. If making spells weaker is the only answer to this I'd rather prefer it the way it is.

Really in Wiz8 - as long as you have someone to provide the few basic buffs like Protection from Missiles, Magic Weapon, Armor etc and someone to provide healing, it seems to be more efficient to have as few casters as possible. I'd rather have less flexibility but the certain knowledge that when I choose to cast a spell it actually counts.

[Archangel]

Arcana Evolved done it perfectly in my opinion. You get more flexibility (it is still a slot based memorization system, just much more flexible), but you lose in spell power at lower levels and there are no 3.5e abuse spells at high levels like Force Cage, Reverse Gravity or Baleful Polymorph (or Divine Power for clerics).

3.5e Psionics tried it as well but they made a mistake. They tried to limit this flexibility with reduced casting. They gave Psions an ability to cast all their powers as most powerful they can, but they can only do it a much smaller number of times then arcane or divine casters. These powers were really powerful.
This caused two big problems:
1. Nova - it let psions go Nova a small number of times per day and completely own encounters (even from wizards). Balancing and making challenging encounters became really difficult. This led to DM practically needing to create the following problem
2. 10-min working day - this is a shorter version of the famous "15-min working/adventuring day" as Psions were left out of Power Points sooner then wizards/clerics while going Nova. Unfortunately, this was the only way to balance encounters with Psions, make them not have anymore juice to own everything. This then led to Psion players making the whole group go and find a place to rest (just like wizards/clerics do in "15-min ...") so they can again be up to their full. Of course most DMs will not allow this either by DM fiat or story behind the adventure. This again leads to complaints (which would be heard by wizards/clerics as well a few encounters later) which would spread to forums and complaints about the whole system.

Of course not all players are like this, and they have enough self-control and tactical mind to not push the bright red button that says Nova in each encounter (like there are players that know not to expend the biggest and shiniest spells they have as a wizard/cleric), but I found those are a minority.

So to conclude my point. When designing PP/mana systems you have to be careful what you do and why. I hope BlueSalamander takes the opportunity to try to make Psionics better by not making the same mistake as WotC did when implementing it into KotC2. Just replicating XPH will not do.