Different RPG systems

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd prefer, on a personal taste basis, that all summoning be restricted to ritual spells. YMMV.

Same here -- certain effects IMO shouldn't be the equivalent of firing a gun in combat.

[Eldan]

FATE was +/- the first system I played after D&D, or at least the first system that wasn't strongly D&D-derrived. It's basically so different it has nothing in common, and it opened up entirely new worlds for me.

One big thing is the idea that players can shape the world and story outside of just things that their character can do. I had already played pretty narrative/roleplaying heavy games before, but the idea that a player can just ask something like "Can I spend a fate point to make it so that I run into someone I know from my backstory in the bar?" or "Can I spend a fate point so that there's an unlocked door into the building?" was huge for me.

Hm. What else. Unknown Armies (especially the new edition) convinced me that you can make an RPG with mechanics around mental illness that actually work?

[Anonymouswizard]

But boy oh boy is the expected payment different.

If you can't cough up an immortal soul revert month what business do you have dealing with demons?

Same here -- certain effects IMO shouldn't be the equivalent of firing a gun in combat.

Yeah.

Although admittedly on my first read through of Barebones Fantasy my first reaction to the Summon spell was 'why would I ever cast this in combat'. Summons last 2d10 turns in combat but if cast outside of combat the spell lasts for 2d10 hours, and sadly you can only cast the spell once a day.

Hm. What else. Unknown Armies (especially the new edition) convinced me that you can make an RPG with mechanics around mental illness that actually work?

To be fair, the mental illness portion was good but not great in 1e and 2e. The difference between Hardened and Failed notches is great, as was tracking five separate kinds of trauma, but I think lining the Shock Guages to your basic chances of success was the masterstroke.

The entire game became about sacrificing the ordinary to get what you want, and sanity is just one part of that. You have to walk the fine line between being able to function and being resistant to trauma, and the mechanics now push you into not being a functional member of society the more detached you get.

Plus the game outright encourages unhealthy obsessions. You will not stop my adept from stealing that shipment of alligator corpses just to make a new dress.

[SimonMoon6]

Are the druids there because we're playing a game primarily based on sources that feature druids? If not then why are they taking up space?

That reminds me of my theoretical redesign of D&D which would remove druids as a class, but still have them playable as a cleric with the animal and plant domains. In this redesign, clerics would only be able to cast spells based on their domain choices (but the list might not be quite so limited as the current domain spell list) and the special abilities that they would gain from their domains would be more dramatic, such as the Animal domain granting wildshape (and possibly more stuff too). This would tend to make it so that the chosen domains (and therefore the chosen deities) would have a bigger impact on what kind of abilities a cleric has. A cleric of a war deity probably would not be casting any healing spells ever. And also, weapon and armor proficiencies would be abilities granted (or not) by domains, so not every priest is going to pile on plate mail, but a cleric of a war god might.

(Also, wizards would all be specialists, only able to cast spells from their specialty and maybe "universal" spells too. The spell list would be juggled around to make this work better and there would be specialties other than just "schools" such as "fire".)

FATE was +/- the first system I played after D&D, or at least the first system that wasn't strongly D&D-derrived. It's basically so different it has nothing in common, and it opened up entirely new worlds for me.

One big thing is the idea that players can shape the world and story outside of just things that their character can do. I had already played pretty narrative/roleplaying heavy games before, but the idea that a player can just ask something like "Can I spend a fate point to make it so that I run into someone I know from my backstory in the bar?" or "Can I spend a fate point so that there's an unlocked door into the building?" was huge for me.

That reminds me of a rule from the DC Heroes RPG. In that game, it is possible to spend Hero Points to have something at hand, such as finding a beaker of acid in a chemistry lab. However, in my games, that rule never really got used much. I'm not sure that the players were very aware of that rule and there are so many other ways to spend Hero Points (you use them in combat and use them as experience points to improve your character) already that the players aren't looking for more.

[Morgaln]

That reminds me of my theoretical redesign of D&D which would remove druids as a class, but still have them playable as a cleric with the animal and plant domains. In this redesign, clerics would only be able to cast spells based on their domain choices (but the list might not be quite so limited as the current domain spell list) and the special abilities that they would gain from their domains would be more dramatic, such as the Animal domain granting wildshape (and possibly more stuff too). This would tend to make it so that the chosen domains (and therefore the chosen deities) would have a bigger impact on what kind of abilities a cleric has. A cleric of a war deity probably would not be casting any healing spells ever. And also, weapon and armor proficiencies would be abilities granted (or not) by domains, so not every priest is going to pile on plate mail, but a cleric of a war god might.

(Also, wizards would all be specialists, only able to cast spells from their specialty and maybe "universal" spells too. The spell list would be juggled around to make this work better and there would be specialties other than just "schools" such as "fire".)



That reminds me of a rule from the DC Heroes RPG. In that game, it is possible to spend Hero Points to have something at hand, such as finding a beaker of acid in a chemistry lab. However, in my games, that rule never really got used much. I'm not sure that the players were very aware of that rule and there are so many other ways to spend Hero Points (you use them in combat and use them as experience points to improve your character) already that the players aren't looking for more.

You might want to look into an old AD&D supplement called Legend&Lore, if you don't know it already. It does almost exactly what you are describing for priests of a number of (real world) deities.

[Anonymouswizard]

Down with druids!

Like, I like them in Keltia. They fit in Keltia. It's based on sources that actually feature druids as characters (including the earliest versions of certain folklore). They fit, and they have a clear place in the world. They're not just there for the sake of it.

Weirdly I think they also work in AD&D2e (I am not going to comment on 1e or 0e). They're just an example of how to tailor Priests to a specific religion, and have an established place in the world (if a vague one). I might grumble about the use of the name, but the class works for what it's meant for.

Honestly, you don't want me to redesign D&D. But I also go out of my way to avoid playing it if possible, these days I'd much rather run fantasy games with Barebones Fantasy or my (still very incomplete) homebrew system. But the druid and warlock would be first on the chopping block, both mainly folded into the Cleric (who here becomes a pact-maker, whether with gods, eldritch entities, internal beings, or nature itself).

[Theoboldi]

Down with druids!

Like, I like them in Keltia. They fit in Keltia. It's based on sources that actually feature druids as characters (including the earliest versions of certain folklore). They fit, and they have a clear place in the world. They're not just there for the sake of it.

Weirdly I think they also work in AD&D2e (I am not going to comment on 1e or 0e). They're just an example of how to tailor Priests to a specific religion, and have an established place in the world (if a vague one). I might grumble about the use of the name, but the class works for what it's meant for.

Honestly, you don't want me to redesign D&D. But I also go out of my way to avoid playing it if possible, these days I'd much rather run fantasy games with Barebones Fantasy or my (still very incomplete) homebrew system. But the druid and warlock would be first on the chopping block, both mainly folded into the Cleric (who here becomes a pact-maker, whether with gods, eldritch entities, internal beings, or nature itself).

Druids are a pretty good example of a common RPG phenomenon. If you design an element for your game that is world-specific, but also really cool, players will want to use it as is even if they have to shoehorn it into the settings they are actually playing in.

D&D with its class and race bloat has always had that most commonly, but it's also the reason many Ironsworn games suddenly involved a whole lot more dungeons after an awesome supplement for dungeon exploration came out for that system.

[KorvinStarmast]

Down with druids!

I was the first guy in our group of OD&D players to try a druid. Druids have been morphed a lot since then. They fit OK at the time, and in AD&D.
But I'd be just as happy to get rid of the Nature domain in D&D 5e and make that sub class the only place you get a druid in 5e. Retool and refit Nature domain (and what, heavy armor for nature domain? What the heck?) With that in mind, move quite a bit of druid into bard ... oh well, much redesign to hand here ...

[Witty Username]

I view mental illness mechanics with suspicion. On the one hand, games like Call of Chultuhu wouldn't feel right without the Sanity stuff, and they do well representing Lovecraftian horror specifically. On the other hand, the idea of particular stats affecting mental well-being(stuff like intelligence or willpower, or morality) can get dicey pretty quickly. Mostly because from what I understand what can effect mental health is pretty complicated and somewhat difficult to predict.

[Telok]

Something I recently recalled, d&d 4e taught me (and pazio starfinder reminded me) that sufficently disassociated npcs & monsters can screw up a dms world building.

In a 4e game we went from fighting gnolls (warriors in plate, two handed swords, casters that could levitate hills & build teleport gates, giant hyenas, demons) at 5th to 7th level, to fighting primitive goblins (clubs, bone armor, stone arrows, normal wolves) at 10th level. It was... weird, to say the least... that normal goblins and normal wolves with clubs & hide armor were tougher than demons & plate wearing gnolls & giant rabid hyenas. I know it was just an artifact of the monster building & math, but was pretty whacked out in play.

4e especially went pretty hard in on the trope of turning npcs who fought on your side into pathetic losers too.

[Anonymouswizard]

I view mental illness mechanics with suspicion. On the one hand, games like Call of Chultuhu wouldn't feel right without the Sanity stuff, and they do well representing Lovecraftian horror specifically. On the other hand, the idea of particular stats affecting mental well-being(stuff like intelligence or willpower, or morality) can get dicey pretty quickly. Mostly because from what I understand what can effect mental health is pretty complicated and somewhat difficult to predict.

So focusing on Unknown Armies 3e.

Unknown Armies focuses on trauma and obsession. Other aspects of mental health don't really come into it. Obsession is modelled in two ways, first everybody has an Obsession linked to one of their Identities which gives them unlimited rerolls and flip-flops with that identity. Secondly one of the two main varieties of magick requires you to be so obsessed with something you come up with a paradox and bend reality to your will.

Trauma is a bit more complicated. Call of Cthulhu this isn't, UA didn't just track one type of trauma. You have five Shock Guages (Isolation, Self, Unnatural, Violence), each split into two tracks: Hardened and Failed notches. Failed Notches are your standard sanity meter, the more you have the more you're meant to roleplay being damaged. Hardened notches are different, they represent growing detached and become resistant to trauma. If an event's severity is equal to port kits than your Hardened notches you can just ignored it. If it's severity is higher you roll the relevant Ability or an Identity that protects that Shock Guage, failure gets you a Failed notch, success gets you a Hardened notch.

Each set of Hardened notches is linked to two Abilities. One is the Upbeat Ability, which begins at 60% and losses 5% for every notch you gain (this is all on the sheet). The other is your Downbeat Ability, which begins at 20% and gains 5% per much. That means that for everything that you don't have an Identity covering you'll find that you get less Annie to be a functioning member of society as you start resorting to lies and manipulation over honest connections (note that must returning soldiers probably don't have most of their Violence notches filled).

It all comes together and works, and it works because it's only looking at two aspects through a simplified lens. Long term mental health conditions, things like depression and anxiety, and anything else to do with mental health? The books don't care about it because they're not designed to.

[Max_Killjoy]

Something I recently recalled, d&d 4e taught me (and pazio starfinder reminded me) that sufficently disassociated npcs & monsters can screw up a dms world building.

In a 4e game we went from fighting gnolls (warriors in plate, two handed swords, casters that could levitate hills & build teleport gates, giant hyenas, demons) at 5th to 7th level, to fighting primitive goblins (clubs, bone armor, stone arrows, normal wolves) at 10th level. It was... weird, to say the least... that normal goblins and normal wolves with clubs & hide armor were tougher than demons & plate wearing gnolls & giant rabid hyenas. I know it was just an artifact of the monster building & math, but was pretty whacked out in play.

4e especially went pretty hard in on the trope of turning npcs who fought on your side into pathetic losers too.

Yeah, TTRPG version of the loathsome "cutscene awesome" or "face turn decay" tropes, where the same exact characters or powers are far less effective once allied with or controlled by the characters.

In TTRPGs, often caused by asymmetric mechanics on a PC vs NPC, or other, split.

[Anonymouswizard]

Druids are a pretty good example of a common RPG phenomenon. If you design an element for your game that is world-specific, but also really cool, players will want to use it as is even if they have to shoehorn it into the settings they are actually playing in.

D&D with its class and race bloat has always had that most commonly, but it's also the reason many Ironsworn games suddenly involved a whole lot more dungeons after an awesome supplement for dungeon exploration came out for that system.

Oh yeah. As I said, in certain contexts I love druids, I'd love to play one in Keltia or the like. But I'll agree the problem is people taking something cool from one setting and using it in another without understanding what made it work.

I was the first guy in our group of OD&D players to try a druid. Druids have been morphed a lot since then. They fit OK at the time, and in AD&D.
But I'd be just as happy to get rid of the Nature domain in D&D 5e and make that sub class the only place you get a druid in 5e. Retool and refit Nature domain (and what, heavy armor for nature domain? What the heck?) With that in mind, move quite a bit of druid into bard ... oh well, much redesign to hand here ...

Again, my issue isn't with Druids as such, although I'd love to see them properly folded into the Cleric. It's how the Druid is treated as essential that annoys me (and honestly druids are just an example). It's actually the 'wizard/sorcerer/warlock' split I see the most often being regurgitated without understanding why.

For the Record I'd nix the Druid, move it's spellcasting stuff into other classes, and then go through the spell lists and remove spells like Alter Self and Polymorph. Because I'd replace the Druid with a dedicated shapeshifter class.

Actually, if I was writing 6e I'd also be tempted to make psionics core. But the Metamorph class comes first.

Yeah, TTRPG version of the loathsome "cutscene awesome" or "face turn decay" tropes, where the same exact characters or powers are far less effective once allied with or controlled by the characters.

In TTRPGs, often caused by asymmetric mechanics on a PC vs NPC, or other, split.

I find that PC/NPC transparency is best discarded in two situations:
-A bit part where 'skilled/unskilled' is all you need. I don't need to know everything about Jeff the Shopkeep, just that the has 66% in haggling and 20% in Resisting Armed Robbers'
-When it's used to reduce enemy resources to mitigate them not facing encounters after this

The first is just not filling in an entire sheet for an NPC you made up on the spot, the second just needs a note like 'reduce all enemy spell slots/whatever to roughly a third of what PCs get',

[Eldan]

I view mental illness mechanics with suspicion. On the one hand, games like Call of Chultuhu wouldn't feel right without the Sanity stuff, and they do well representing Lovecraftian horror specifically. On the other hand, the idea of particular stats affecting mental well-being(stuff like intelligence or willpower, or morality) can get dicey pretty quickly. Mostly because from what I understand what can effect mental health is pretty complicated and somewhat difficult to predict.

You might want to have a look at Unknown Armies, then, because it's exactly... not that. Personally, I hate basic sanity meters. Unknown armies instead has five sanity meters, that are also your ownly stats. They have names like "Self" and "Violence" and "Social" and represent how traumatized your character is by certain things. For example, the stat "Violence" is invoked when you act violently, when violence is done to you, or when you witness violence. Depending on whether you have never been exposed to violence, have become hardened to violence or traumatized by it, it becomes easier or harder to be violent yourself and to witness violence without taking more trauma. It also takes away your empathy and makes you violent, though.

[Theoboldi]

Oh yeah. As I said, in certain contexts I love druids, I'd love to play one in Keltia or the like. But I'll agree the problem is people taking something cool from one setting and using it in another without understanding what made it work.

Honestly, I'm not sure I'd fully say it's a problem, hence me using the more neutral term 'phenomenom', since it can have both negative (out of place elements that feel tacked on) and positive (exploring ideas that would have stayed unexplored otherwise, cool reinventions of existing material) results.

But beyond that, I do believe we are fully in agreement on this, especially in how certain D&D class constructs are treated as essential even across D&D settings.

Actually, if I was writing 6e I'd also be tempted to make psionics core.

You have my vote, then.

[Max_Killjoy]

Actually, if I was writing 6e I'd also be tempted to make psionics core. But the Metamorph class comes first.

Psionics is one of those things that needs to be included from the jump if it's going to be included at all.

Especially in a system where each little "thing" is believed to "need" its own special subsystem and mechanics.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, I'm not sure I'd fully say it's a problem, hence me using the more neutral term 'phenomenom', since it can have both negative (out of place elements that feel tacked on) and positive (exploring ideas that would have stayed unexplored otherwise, cool reinventions of existing material) results.

But beyond that, I do believe we are fully in agreement on this, especially in how certain D&D class constructs are treated as essential even across D&D settings.

Sure, there can be very good repurposing if setting specific material. so I guess problem is too strong. But yes, we are essentially in agreement.

You have my vote, then.

I'm still a bit unsure how I'd handle the Psychic* class, I'd either keep it closer to how magic users work or go for a 'at-will basic powers, spend SR recharge points to strengthen them'. But I think pdionics and especially PC-useable psionics deserve to be better integrated and feel 'core'.

Plus I just like psychics and really want to play one.

* I think using 'psychic' fits in better and puts people in the right frame of mind.

[Yuki Akuma]

You might want to have a look at Unknown Armies, then, because it's exactly... not that. Personally, I hate basic sanity meters. Unknown armies instead has five sanity meters, that are also your ownly stats. They have names like "Self" and "Violence" and "Social" and represent how traumatized your character is by certain things. For example, the stat "Violence" is invoked when you act violently, when violence is done to you, or when you witness violence. Depending on whether you have never been exposed to violence, have become hardened to violence or traumatized by it, it becomes easier or harder to be violent yourself and to witness violence without taking more trauma. It also takes away your empathy and makes you violent, though.

To expand from this, the five Shock Gauges (Violence, Self, Isolation, Helplessness and Unnatural) have both Failed and Hardened notches.

When you fail a shock roll, you gain a failed notch, which doesn't really do anything mechanical on its own. If you succeed a shock roll, you gain a Hardened notch, which lowers one core skill by 5% and raises another by 5%, and makes you harder to shock with that sort of stressor. If you gain 5 failed notches in one meter, you go insane in some way related to that stress - you might get PTSD, or depression, or hallucinations, or whatever. If you gain 9 hardened notches in one meter, or 25 total hardened notches, you become detached and uncaring about people (and also lose the ability to use Avatar magic).

Failed and hardened notches can both be erased using therapy.

For example, say I have 3 Hardened notches in the Violence gauge. This means my Connect skill is rated at 45%, and my Struggle skill is rated at 30%. If someone stabs me (Violence 2), well, that sucks, but it doesn't really shake me that much - I've had this happen to me before, or something similar, so I don't roll a Violence check.

Meanwhile, if that stabbing results in a fight and I kill the other guy (Violence 5), I will have to roll a shock check - I may be used to getting beaten, but killing people isn't something I'm prepared for! If I fail, I gain a failed notch in Violence, getting one step closer to breaking down completely. If I succeed, I gain another hardened notch in Violence, totalling 4, which shifts my Connect down to 40% and my Struggle up to 35% - my experience with killing a man has made me lose some of my ability to connect with people, but made me better at hurting people.

The other four Shock Gauges key off of other things - Self gets stressed when I act in a way contrary to my self perception; Isolation gets stressed if I don't interact with people for a long time; Helplessness gets stressed if I find myself in situations where I can't do anything; and Unnatural gets stressed when I'm reminded that the world makes no ****ing sense and magic and ghosts and fairies and **** are real.


I love the way Unknown Armies 3e ties together your character's psychology and their basic abilities. There are also Identities that can cover for other abilities (if I'm a karate master, my Struggle would be pretty high, even if I've never been in a real fight where someone has died), but anything your Identities don't cover is covered by your psychology.

[Witty Username]

Unknown Armies. Alright, I will take a look at that one.

[Eldan]

Just a general warning that it has all the trigger warnings, though.

[Anonymouswizard]

Just a general warning that it has all the trigger warnings, though.

Yeah, Unknown Armies is a game about human horror. Third edition is pretty up front about the fact that you're almost certainly not good people and that nobody else in the Occult Underground is, and at the end of the day everything is caused by the actions of humans.

It's pretty much my favourite game because of that, but it does mean that there's a lot of triggering stuff in there.

Also, beware that it can be political in places, including some of the default factions.

[KorvinStarmast]

Because I'd replace the Druid with a dedicated shapeshifter class.

The moon druid. in D&D 5e, but as far as I am concerned, doppelgangers do no belong as PCs. But perhaps that's a matter of taste.

Actually, if I was writing 6e I'd also be tempted to make psionics core.

Which takes us back to "do we really need three systems of magic?" It's a design question worth asking. (Interestingly, there's a guy (see Delta's hot spot) who has removed clerics from the OD&D game and it works. One system of magic is perhaps a better design parameter).

Psionics is one of those things that needs to be included from the jump if it's going to be included at all.

yep.

[SimonMoon6]

Which takes us back to "do we really need three systems of magic?"

I've never really thought of cleric magic as being a different "system". I mean, whether cleric, druid, or wizard/sorcerer, it all comes out the same. You cast a spell on your list of spells which overlaps the other lists of spells. Spells are cast in exactly the same way (with V, S, M, F, and/or DF components). Spells are countered in exactly the same regardless of what list they're on. It's all just the same stuff. The source of the magic might be different but that's all; that's really just fluff anyway. Classes just give different spell lists and different "add on" abilities, like "do you have to memorize spells or cast spontaneously" or "here, have some domain spells", but that's all that they do differently, really. (And I remember back in the day of the four main spell-casting classes being magic-user, illusionist, cleric, and druid.)

Psionics tends to feel different because there's no real crossover with spells. Psions don't cast polymorph; they "manifest" a power called "metamorphosis". Again, that's mainly just fluff except for the lack of interaction with spells. Psions don't use spells like everyone else. Their powers don't go into wands, scrolls, or potions; they go into items that are exactly the same but called something different. And so forth.

Obviously, ideally, it would all be handled like Spheres of Power, where the powers/spells you can use are completely disconnected from your "tradition" of how you cast spells.

[Telwar]

For Psionics 6e, my hope* is that they basically bundle the extra details needed into spell descriptions, like PSP costs in addition to slot level, manifestation, etc. You can still have some psionic powers that have no magic spell match, and vice versa, but there's a lot of crossover potential.

* - which will be dashed, quite expertly, no doubt.

[KorvinStarmast]

For Psionics 6e, my hope* {snip}
* - which will be dashed, quite expertly, no doubt.

Based on the history to date, yes it will with the caveat that I have no familiarity with 4e psionics, and I'll guess it worked OK?

[Anonymouswizard]

The moon druid.

Still has too much spellcasting for my tastes.

Which takes us back to "do we really need three systems of magic?"

If they're well designed and sufficiently distinct, yes.

D&D 5e has maybe two kinds of magic mechanically: one way for Warlocks, and another for everybody else. While spell lists differ the underlying mechanics are the same.

Although I might nix the Wizard and Sorcerer before the Cleric. Actually dropping the classes tto jusy Barbarian/Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Warlock might be fun.

But compare that to Unknown Armies which has 2.5-3 kinds of magick. Avatars just act in accordance with their Archetype and get four mostly at0-will powers (some are more limited, and Godwalkers get a DIY fifth channel), Adepts charge up their mojo and then cast spells within their theme and then you have rituals (which anybidy can do, but Adepts and Avatars do better), Gutter Magick (using symbology to strong arm fate), and other weird stuff that doesn't fit into the above methods. Each way feels different in play, and says different things about your character.

Plus several of those Avatar powers are just fun.

But Unknown Armies is also a very different game. Multiple magic systems can also be done very poorly.

I have no problems with Barebones Fantasy only having one magic system (which Clerics get partial access to). It works. But if i have no issue with psionics working just as magic does, I'd be fine if a player wanted to rename the Spellcaster skill Psychic and nab a spell from another d00 Lite game I woudln't care, and actually wish Telepathy and Mind Reading were on the list anyway. This is much more my annoyance at people who think psionics 'don't fit in fantasy'

My elven mindshaper begs to differ.

[Max_Killjoy]

I've long wondered if a rework of D&D magic could separate source and methodology.

That is, what determines what system a character uses as a caster is based on their approach, not on where the power comes from. And the power could come from more than one place for the same method -- internal, planar, divine, pacts with entities, forcefully bound entities, etc, or a mix of sources.

So the sorcerer becomes a freeform caster, the wizard becomes an academic caster, the monk becomes a meditative caster with lots of physical effects, the warlock becomes a wildcard, or whatever.

[NichG]

D&D is already far past this threshold, but if you want to have something where anyone could reasonably and consistently answer interpretive questions like 'can someone invent a spell that does X, and what would it take?' or 'what effects are impossible for Y to bring about?' or 'what is the cost for sustaining an effect Z indefinitely, and what could be different ways of paying that cost?' or things like that, then having tight coupling between the different elements of what makes up a caster is better than making everything mix-and-match modular. E.g. its harder to reason about Gandalf's magic in LotR than about Harry Potter magic (one is 'any effect but there is some kind of either self-imposed or practical limit to scope, which might vary with time and tide', the other is at least 'anything that has a fake latin phrase that sounds like it'), and harder to reason about Harry Potter magic than something like allomancy which has much tighter integration between what are the powers, where they come from, how are they brought about, etc.

In some sense, one of the biggest things divine magic brings to D&D is to say 'its very hard for arcane magic to heal, and there should always be some sort of cost or awkwardness or round-about explicit borrowing of someone else's power whenever it does'.

[Anonymouswizard]

I've long wondered if a rework of D&D magic could separate source and methodology.

Hmmm....

I think if we changed the spellcasting classes to just say what they g=do you might be able to make that work. I'd probably go for something like Academic (wizard), Pact (Cleric/Warlock), and Wellspring (Sorcerer/Psychic) as the sources. Although I do like the idea of Enlightened magic.

You'd be tearing the whole system down and rebuilding it from scratch. but the two latest editions have done that anyway. I'd probably prefer this theoretical 6e magic system to the way it works in 5e.

[Telwar]

Based on the history to date, yes it will with the caveat that I have no familiarity with 4e psionics, and I'll guess it worked OK?

4e Psionics actually worked decently. They integrated with the AEDU format as almost entirely at-will, with power points spent to boost them as an encounter power equivalent (and then you had separate daily powers) The main issue was that the effects for the paragon- and epic-tier powers really weren't that much better than the heroic tier, but cost a lot more, which meant there was a disincentive to use those higher level powers when you could get like 85-90% of the effect a lot more often. That wasn't usually an issue with the other AEDU classes/power sources, those you did typically want to upgrade.

And frankly 3.5 psionics was probably my favorite version ever...but again, it came in later when there was more developed system expertise.