[Mithlas]

Originally Posted by Otaku

What do you mean by consistent framework? GURPS is a tool kit system.

What I proposed was that all such things have a unifying scheme that takes one of three approaches:
1) All (or at least mostly) Skill Based, like the default Magic system and chi-fueled abilities.
2) All (or at least mostly) Advantage based, like Powers
3) A blend of the two, akin to how GURPS handled psionics in 3e (and possibly an option presented in 4e books I don't own).

Maybe I need to say "consistently applied framework". One of my players has (or had) a copy of 4E's Thaumatology, which went over how to construct several magic systems, but the issue remains that there are a lot of spells that are handled inconsistently (in terms of prerequisites, effects, cost to cast) in the main system and this is a problem because with it being the core, by default everything moves from there. When the examples from the base are not clearly all structured from the same framework, problems arise.

By having fewer spells (especially in the core book), we have fewer potential obstacles in terms of trying to reimage the spells so everything works on the same rules and costs as Powers does.

Originally Posted by wellspring

In GURPS Thaumatology: Ritual Path Magic, spellcasting is mostly spontaneous. The player comes up with a spell effect and then negotiates an energy cost and magical skill prerequisites on the fly. So if you want a spell that works a certain way to match another RPG setting or a fictional world like Harry Potter or Song of Ice and Fire, it's simply part of the normal task of mapping it into the RPM framework.

GURPS Thaumatology: Sorcery takes another approach. There you have spells designed as advantages in advance and added to a fixed spell list available for the campaign. The GM builds an advantage that models the intended spell effect, then applies the Sorcery power modifier, which adds all the game mechanics specific to Sorcery. At that point, if the player spends the points, he can buy the spell.

I understand, thanks for the contrast. Lacking the books, I think I can say both seem clear and concise enough to easily use without there being imbalance.

Originally Posted by wellspring

My goal was to take what was best about default Magic and try to retrofit a spell creation system to it. I mostly like default Magic. So I took "Skills into Powers" and worked it backwards as "Powers into Skills". Here's the link.

Thanks for the link, but as you yourself indicate: there is inconsistency in the base spells as written. The ones built with the powers structure are all (presumably) constructed on the same framework and therefore should have about the same ease of access and power-to-input/cost. As I'm working on filling out Psychics for a game I plan to run, I don't have the time to make an analysis now.

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

I mean setting energy reductions to things like Spell (IQ), Spell (IQ+3).

I see, but that doesn't change the focus in the "one stat" problem. I remember one of the players in the fantasy game thought that things like range, area, maximum damage should be reflected by the spell's relative skill level. As it is now, the only effect is the energy reduction at 20.