Magic and those that use it are capable of almost anything...

Just make it so that I don't have to choose between whatever feels cool at the moment and being relevant in the party. Ie balance that shit.

>Implying fighter have the INT required to do that.

3, no contest.

3 is a non-entity in both games and fiction for the simple fact that game designers and authors never have the balls to follow through with it. Implementation is limp-wristed in games because it isn't fun or fair to the caster, and so they have a bevy of options to minimize/trivialize the danger. In writing, this shit has no impact whatsoever on important characters i.e. those we'll be following around the whole time. It only happens at appropriate times to appropriate characters, sometimes with foreshadowing so obvious, it robs it of the abruptness/arbitrariness that's supposed to characterize it.

1.If you want to balance shit you need to do it in metaplay.Otherwise in just the most logical choice.

2 for high fantasy, 4 for low fantasy, 1 for all caster party (Mage, Ars Magica). Also, some aspect of 3 is good, but it shouldn't be the primary method of balancing things, if balance is the goal.

Fair point. 1 can work, but only if spellcasters are the only character option.

How is it logical?

Because he's either a troll or suffering from 3.PF induced brain damage.

Please, defeat a T-rex by that.

3 or 4 or a mix thereof
2 is fine but a little overdone and 1 very rarely works

>magic breaks physics
>martials bound by them
>logical
>muh realism
I think the troll here is you.

1 - cool for a setting based on playing a mage, explaining why the party matters

2 - good

3 - better for stories not games

4 - good for low impact stories, but at that point there are more interesting ways of doing so, like roleplaying an average kid is a spirited away type setting.

3. Balancing issues exist there, yes, but they disapear if players concentrate on playing the character they want and not on being even.

In WFRPG we once had a high level High Elf mage, a young cleric of Morr and a simple Imperial soldier. The Mage far more powerful than the other two combined but everybody concentrated on rp and the story and nobody minded.

Granted, it would never work if the Elf player was an asshole.

3, with the addition of time. If you are willing to take the risk and extend your lifespan beyond what is natural you should be rewarded for the extra years of study

2 or 3 are the only answers for actual gameplay.
4 works for narrative in fiction, but is rough in actual gameplay, since it requires a GM to be firm on limits and players to actually be creative.

>Play Dark heresy or WHFRP
>Horrible Miscast effects
>Instant death "Demons drag you kicking and screaming into the warp" possibility

I love it; I'm the Dm so naturally I would.

I made a system that includes cosmic nemeses coming after anyone who casts the most powerful spells, which are suitably bad for the natural state of things.
The spellcasters have limited effects if they cast their spells in a vacuum, but through clever trickery and combining effects will end up with the really interesting power base.
Rewarding craftiness and inventiveness is what I like to do with magic.
Whereas combat in this system gives you a few seconds IRL to respond to them in AoT, where you can stagger or escape your foe. It rewards decisiveness and taking the initiative as well as vivid descriptions or well-placed advantages.
But on your list, I'd say it's closer to 2.

Where's the option for magic being powerful but slow?
>Magic is capable of grand and wonderful things, but these things are time-consuming and easily interrupted. In a contest of direct damage, an archer will always beat a mage of equal experience one-on-one, being able to loose two arrows as a standard action, while the mage's basic spells deal damage equivalent to one arrow, or less damage in a 10-foot-radius burst, neither of which ignore armor.
>To cast a more advanced spell, you need to focus a certain amount of mana first, which takes at least one move action. These actions need not be consecutive, and you need not commit to casting a particular spell ahead of time, but it is impossible to hold focus for very long.
>Thus a mage in combat will have to choose. Do you move and attack, or move and focus, or attack and focus, or focus twice, or something else? The non-magical classes have the advantage at the beginning of a fight, but magical classes are the ones who END a fight.

Mixture of 3 and 4.

Number 2 is hands down my preferred style

Number 4 because a spell that can instantly disintegrate anything is fucking stupid

I'm not sure which kind this falls under.
>Using magic is like using any other muscle or organ, and straining yourself causes physical backlash ranging from irritability to disorientation to coma to catastrophic heart failure.
>A very skilled mage can reliably disintegrate one giant with the aid of some twenty pounds of expensive casting equipment, a quarter hour of preparation, and an hour of downtime afterwards, while a warrior of similar skill can probably kill that same giant with a decent longsword or pollaxe and a five-minute warmup just to be safe.
>Most people in the line of work don't get to that level, and the ones that do would still opt for a shovel and a barrel of powder instead if at all possible.

Now that's just being sensible about the whole thing, and we simply can't have that. Better to take hyperbolic assertions (usually made early on in a work) as immutable fact (and never fanciful bullshit) or ramp up the stupid as time goes on.

That is a sexy as fuck Agate

Pretty sure that's paint, bruh.

Yeah, nah, it stinks. Powerful magic with a chance of horrible catastrophe as the only downside gives you a situation where the results always seem unfair to somebody.

Or in other words, the wizard dominates the game until they get sucked into a bullshit hellportal.

Magic should be used only to do things that you couldnt do easily otherwise, only because developing spells is difficult. Nobody would bother to make a spell which cuts somebody at range, because arrows already do so fairly well. Magic is used for building bridges and towers, growing forests, and drying rivers at great cost in blood and treasure.

If these are my only options then I like number one - magic is THEORETICALLY capable of anything. That's not to say that it's easy to acquire the power to disintegrate giants or there's no cost to doing so, and if every PC starts with the same level of training it might always be the better investment to dump your points into swordsmanship and giant-climbing.

Its both. Its called Fordite or "Detroit Agate" and is formed from layers of accumulated automobile paint layered and hardened over time, until its sufficiently hardened enough to cut and polish into jewelry

Neat

No such thing as magic, faagit, fuck off.

>"Detroit Agate"

KEK!

If they say things like >3.PF induced brain damage
You can bet they're just a troll.

So... don't use it for magic?

Second one.

Never really liked 'Perils of the Warp' type shit, and I like settings where wizards and martials have some sort of parity. It adds an interesting dynamic to fantasy combat.

3 & 4 in combination

Weak magic is easy, reliable, and safe.

Powerful magic is difficult, prone to failure, and fairly dangerous. With powerful spells you must trade off preparation time and expensive components against risk of failure and possible harm or loss of life.

This whole thing is a troll thread, user. Fuck virt.

hahaha eat my purple force lightning bitches
OH SHIT PERILS OF THE WARP NOOOOO

1 and 3 bore me: 1 because it's limited and overdone and 3 because it's rarely done well.

>why would you want to limit it
Because not everyone wants to play a wizard.

>magic is stupidly unbalanced
>magic is still stupidly unbalanced, but now fighters are anime
>magic is stupidly dangerous
>magic is stupidly weak

None of the above, thanks.

2. If dragons exist, and giants exist, then why would you expect the laws of physics to apply the same way they do now? Clearly things don't work how they do in the real world - otherwise how could a dragon's wings propel it into the air, and how could a giant run without its legs tearing through its kneecaps? So if they can benefit from these new laws of physics, why not humanity?

I'm glad you presented your much better option that solves all of these problems.

It's great for car based magic.

Honestly the examples in the OP can be solved pretty simply. The mage wants to disintegrate a giant. That's pretty a potent spell, so it should take a great deal of time, energy, and concentration to pull off. If this is direct combat, the mage has neither time nor concentration to spare, so straight disintegration simply isn't feasible. In fact, faced with a giant barreling straight towards him, the mage would be hard pressed to cast any kind of powerful spell. If it isn't direct combat, then the mage doesn't need to disintegrate the giant. He could just veil himself and go by it. Hell, even in combat using tried and true attack spells would serve him better than taking the time to do retardedly powerful magic, meaning he would be in roughly the same position as the fighter.

In my opinion, magic SHOULD be overpowered. It's fucking magic. That doesn't necessarily mean that all mages are inherently overpowered because of it. If you want to balance mages then take into consideration things like education. A mage needs to learn and work his way up to disintegration. He can't just learn it overnight. Then there's what I said before; casting time (he can't just destroy things by blinking) energy (magic doesn't run on farts) and concentration (he can't evade the giant AND cast). Throw in a bunch of systems to defend against magic and boom, mages aren't demigods. It isn't hard.

So long this overpowered magic has proper massive societal consequences, I'm fine with it. Your wizards are capable of a not-insignificant amount of bullshit when giants aren't barreling at him so no coping out.

So you're saying that you prefer magic to be powerful, but only moderately so as to be balanced, and that you prefer magic to be dangerous, but in a gradated and thereby game-able manner?

LOL what a fag.

What exactly is magic supposed to be balanced against?

>magic SHOULD be overpowered.
>goes on to list various ways to make it not OP
?

Don't put limitations on magic. Put limitations on mages.

I don't like either of those options. I like my magic systems setup in such a way that magic is really hard to use and really hard to get the intended effect (or any effect) out of, but those effects have the potential to be really grand, or really subtle.

I also prefer magic to not be a "combat" thing, but more something that takes concentrated effort of many people, particularly for grander effects. Individual mages can't do anything flashy without tons of time to work their spells.

In my current game I'm running, the PCs can't be mages, but they all benefit from mages in some way (enhanced items, support, information, etc.).

1 works if you don't let players be mages.
I'm currently playing a campaign that is essentially world war 1 but with crazy powerful wizards. We (the players) are a group barely trained but very experienced mortal men who have gained notoriety as a unit that specializes in killing mages. Originally we held the line like everyone else but a couple lucky shots and some well placed explosives and now we have every general, politician, and world leader demanding we go hunt down what are essentially demigods. So far its been a blast, because the odds are always overwhelming and our GM makes it very difficult but not unfair.

I think this kind of thing requires a good GM though, ultimately he can makes rules up on the spot for how some particular mages magic works but as long as things teeter on that line between "extremely difficult" and "downright impossible" its a very rewarding game to play.

Here's number 5

>Magic is intristic and vital for the whole world so everyone uses it. Martial practice after solidifiying the basics with techniques is also focused on using magic mostly of the body strenghtening, warding and healing variations.

Most of them aren't bad in the right circumstances, but I like to see the rare variations that get used seldomly. For example:
>Magic is potent and grand spells are feasible, but you need time to learn/prepare a spell to use quickly.
Not a little time. If a spell is supposed to be useful in combat, you need about a year to learn it properly.
So an average mage can do lots of rituals for all kinds of situations if he has instructions on them, but can only cast two or three spells spontaneously.
Is this actually as rare as I think it is?

I hope you mean conceptually, because in the RPGs, it's just:

>40KRPG
Oh no, I rolled psychic phenomenon. I hope I somehow avoid the 0.0001 risk of rolling something bad that actually matters.

>Fantasy
Oh no, I rolled psychic phenomenon. I hope I somehow avoid the 0.01 risk of rolling something bad that actually matters.

Unless you're a Priest, in which case it's more of a 0.1 risk, despite your powers supposedly being safer.

None of them.

5: Magic is capable of grand and wondrous things, but it isn't a substitute for doing them the other way. Want to kill a giant with a spell? Entirely doable. But you need a fresh sample of its blood(a skilled practitioner can substitute a piece of skin or hair) and a long ritual to do so. And even then using magic to kill living things can come bite you in the ass if you do it too often, so your skills would be better used enhancing the warrior so he can do it instead.

>In my opinion, magic SHOULD be overpowered. It's fucking magic.
Why? Magic being powerful is entirely an interpretation of modern high fantasy. Magic in its original sources (myth, occult and religious texts) was never particularly powerful.

>Which do you prefer, if you have to play in a setting that involves magic?
I prefer when all the PC are technically mages, but magic is diverse or versatile enough that it's possible to specialize in its martial application.

If it's from Detroit, I'm pretty sure it has absorbed lots of black magics.

If you're answer isn't 2, you're gay.

2
3 almost never fucking works

So mages are essentially scientists?

There's no reason to limit unreasoned abstract power that can break laws of physics,that already serves as a pocket deus ex machine.If you try to make a "logical" setting ,your players will still find a way to exploit it,otherwise there no reasons to have it in the first place, otherwise than just "it's fantasy so magic is a must" cliche.

There's no reason why magic SHOULDN'T have limits other than "lol wizards should be able to do everything because I say so".

>Magic in its original sources (myth, occult and religious texts) was never particularly powerful
>turn entire ship crew in pigs with a click
>turn into a dragon
>create mater out of nothing
>unwish life to exist

How do you limit something you can't explain?

Magic doesn't need to be unexplainable. And even if it is, how does that stop you from limiting it?

Alright.

>Moves faster than 12mph

I honestly prefer when magic is weak but deals in things no mundane skill can cover, like divinations or curing or laying curses, or when magic is powerful but requires oaths, pacts, bindings and excruciatingly exact conditions to work, so the more power the mage wants to unleash the more prep time he needs, and the more he has to put his ass on the line by being limited and predictable. You can disintegrate the giant, but you need THIS, and THIS, and THIS, you must have dressed and acted like THAT for a year, you must not have eaten X, Y or W for a year, and you MUST NOT MOVE from the circle until the spell is done.

Of course, no game does one or the other.

1) All-mage party only. Ars Magical or WoD's mage
2) L5R fuck yeah!
3) WFRP fuck yeah!
4) Nah. Boring.

That one nigga parted the red sea
Admitidly though power given by a god
And what about some of those indian weapons.

I never saw explained magic.It either "mystic energy that allows you to do shit" which is same for "unexplained";warhammer chaosism ,which is unlimited and "dangerous" or nanomachines ,which is unlimited.
>And even if it is, how does that stop you from limiting it?
Because, if DM will put his foot down every time he doesn't feel like it, players will stop feeling railroad up their ass but rather dm's dick.

I like magic like this:

A giant killer is uses magic, regardless of what the giant killer does to kill giants.

Some giant killers might use a fireball to burn the giant to death. Some giant killers might bulk up their muscles and bones to inhuman strength, allowing them to engage a giant wielding a sword as big as themselves armed with only an arming sword. Some giant killers call upon forces of nature, hell, heaven, or even more distant places to tear apart the giant. Some giant killers turn all their power into their arms and their eyes, allowing them to kill a giant with just a single arrow.

I like my magic to work just like mythology and legends. Heroes that can tell the future, heroes that can rise the dead, heroes that have amazing strength, heroes that can bind demons, heroes that can throw javelins like they're railguns, you get the idea.

>My Napoleonic War-era fantasy setting
any link or homemade ?

I like #1 but with the players who use magic (if allowed) will never reach the level at which they outstrip their martial compatriots in game, and if they do, the martial's get items of magical power which boost them up to that level.

Or spellcasters aren't an option at all.

Not everything that's supernatural is magic. There is a difference between spells and divine fucking miracles that are empowered by omnipotent beings.
Magic and sorcery specifically is never particularly strong in myth, using weeks of preparation and extremely detailed rituals to achieve anything of note.

I've always enjoyed the idea that to get a lot out of magi you have to put a lot of work in. In the current setting I'm working on anyone can can cast rituals or do "magic" with the correct training and technique, as in they can can commune with ancestor spirits or ward against curses. There are people (but not PCs) who can cast fireballs and rip castles apart, but these are the exception. They must have another source of power, such as a linage of progressively more powerful wizards, or relation to a spirit, supernatural being, being very directly blessed by a god, being born from a long convoluted prophecy, etc.
I think this kind of system means casters provide good utility without replacing martials while you can still have "OH SHIT the BBEG just froze a village" moments

Magic is omnipresent and everyone uses it. Mages use it to throw fireballs. Fighters use it to cleave a giant in two with a blade that's charitably only one sixteenth of their entire body.

Different mages and different warriors have specific shticks of roughly similar power. Mages get a much more narrow focus than the standard and have specific limitations that require more thought to work around.

>turn entire ship crew in pigs with a click
>turn into a dragon
>unwish life to exist
>empowered by omnipotent beings
wew
also
>Not everything that's supernatural is magic
It literaly is

>Why?
Because what we're talking about here is high fantasy magic. I give zero fucks about old myths about magic.

Magic is plot.

>It literaly is
It literally depends on the setting and the context.
D&D? Pretty much always.
Actual belief systems, myths, and most fiction? If someone performed a ritual to ask or compel them to do it, *maybe*.

The acts of gods and supernatural beings defy the bounds of reality, but outside of recognizing it as supernatural or fantastic it's not inherently categorized as 'magic' and there's not usually a need for categorizing it at all. The reason why miracles and divine influence is explicitly called 'magic' in D&D (and other RPGs that bother to put so fine a point on it) is because they're categorizing so it can interact with other abstractions and subsystems, not in service of some philosophy or truth which should be expected to define it outside of the bounds of the game.

In the Odyssey, when gods did things to spite Odysseus? That wasn't magic, those were simply acts of gods. Water into wine? Not magic. Et cetera.

1 and 4 are retarded, though I tolerate 1 in 3.PF because of spells per day limits. Personally I would like 1, except with the addendum "can only be done 3 or 4 times a day"

The system I am currently working on, a mage gets spells per day equal to its level. You are 6th level? You can cast 6 spells today. That's it.

lern to differentiate between mortal magic and godly powers, ass.

how do you explain something you can't limit?
somebody figured it out at last!

2 Is the best for high fantasy, 4 for low fantasy.

I'd like to think that each has its own place depending on what you want to explore in a game.

1. would be useful in exploring large scale conflicts or questions of power.
2. would be useful to explore questions of theme
3. would be useful for exploring the questions of risk and reward and sacrifice inherent in an unknown and uncaring world (like our own)
4. Would be useful in exploring the idea of "skill" as opposed to "power"

I'd prefer option 4 because I've always liked to play in settings where magic mirrors industry.