I still play 2nd edition rules. :P I didn't like 3rd and won't even touch 4th.. Never herd of 5th till now... Sheesh I feel old now. :(

I'm preferring original D&D or 1E myself right now.

This also closely mirrors my own opinion on the subject. While it can make the game easier to learn and run, it does greatly change the style of play. I would like to think that those who have played the earlier editions knopw what I mean by that.

I personally prefer , which is a re-edited version of 3.5e D&D. Most of their [url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/]mechanical rules freely hosted by the publisher, , themselves. Then again I've been playing D&D off & on since around 1983, that year I received the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Basic_Set#1983_revision]Mentzer red box as a gift.

The 5e Basic Rules are freely available on the Wizards of the Coast website; but the Basic Rules are extremely "basic" and by that I mean not unlike how the Basic '83 Mentzer red box is "basic" in comparison to the 1E AD&D Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, Monster Manuals, Unearthed Arcana, et cetera... The only time that I recall that D&D had a mana type spell casting was the spell point system presented in Player's Option: Spells & Magic, but I don't believe the system was ever used again after the end of 2e AD&D. The closest present thing to it would be the Charisma based casting used by Sorcerers and other spontaneous spell casters that was introduced in 3e.
I have to agree, mana systems seem way too video game-ish to me. Mana systems also make primary spell casting classes (Magic-Users/Wizards/Mages, Illusionists, Priests/Clerics, Druids, et cetera) much more powerful in relation to other classes. You know it exacerbates the "Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards" & "15 Minute Workday" type problems. Which wouldn't be a huge problem if DMs would apply all the time & resource management rules that the pre-2e (Oe/White Box, Holmes Basic, 1e AD&D, Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert, Mentzer BECMI) rules used. Things like wandering monster checks, spell interruption (there were no concentration checks; if you received even 1 point of damage or failed a saving throw before you finished casting, the spell was ruined), training time & costs for level advancement, percentage chance to learn new spells, maximum number of spells know per spell level, material spell components (for high level spells they could be very expensive and/or extremely rare), spell memorization times (10 minutes per spell level, a maximum of 8 hours per day, et cetera), research time & costs to learn new spells, research time & costs then construction time & costs for crafting magic items, at 9th level Warrior type classes could establish domains and attract militia & houseguard troops or followers, et cetera...

You forgot about psionics, which have used a mana based magic system since 2nd edition, including 3e and 3.5e.

{quote about mama systems being to video-gamey}

I disagree. To me, the separation of spell casting resources into spell levels feels gamey to me. For example, pre-3e, you could have a character run out of lower level spells, but still have higher level spells to use. This, of course, can create odd situations. In the original Final Fantasy, which has a magic system similar to what 3e sorcerers use, you could realistically have a White Mage who still has plenty of MP left, but can't heal because she's already used up her odd level spell points. Similarly, in AD&D (1e and 2e), you find that offensive focus mages can't find anything to fill their 4th level spell slots with that is at least as strong as Fireball. It really makes no sense.

Also, from a scaling perspective, a 20th level mage, for example, can cast multiple 9th level spells per day without affecting her ability to cast lower level spells. A mana system where spells of that magnitude (especially game changing ones like Time Stop) cost a lot of MP would make it so that one has to be careful with high-level spells and might not have any energy (MP) left for lower level spells.

Disagrees about mana being video gamey...uses final fantasy as an example.

Read my post, which you've quoted, more closely; I specifically mentioned spell casting. Psionics aren't spells nor ever have been, irregardless of whether they are a point based system instead of a slot based system. Psionics originally appeared in the Oe White Box supplement Eldritch Wizardry and again in Appendix I of the 1e AD&D Players Handbook, which was well before the 2e Complete Psionics Handbook.

Exactly.

Psionics is enough like spell casting that it can be treated as magic. The way I see it, from a game mechanics standpoint (ignoring flavor), psionics is magic; it's just called something different.

Also, I don't know about 0e, but 1e psionics was a mess, with separate point totals for different things and unclear rules. It is only in 2e that you have a single mana pool that is used for all psionics, which is a much simpler system. (Of course, I wouldn't call it balanced, particularly since the more powerful powers aren't level gated the way the more powerful spells are.)

In 3.5e, the rules actually state that psionics are magic. Dispel Magic, for example, can dispel psionic powers (provided one isn't using the "psionics are different" variant rule).

It's worth noting that the Wizardry series of computer games, starting with Wizardry 6 (and including some Japanese spinoffs, like Wizardry Gaiden 4), included psionics as a form of magic, alongside wizardry, divinity, and alchemy.

Except for it expressly stating that it's NOT magic (In 0e, 1e, 2e).

Having a Mana pool was often a fix for this, but is house ruled so not an option in many games :P

On the other hand, I think Psionics in 3.5 did it right where each level up cost 2 more points. So a 3rd level spell was 5 points to cast, you could alternatively do 5 1st level spells, and doing a lot of lower work meant you were more effective if you didn't mind the extra time it took; Then again doing a lot of 1d6-2d6 acid spells vs a 5d6 fireball AOE had huge differences in effect and ability depending on the situation and urgency.
Have you tried to use the 2e psionics? It had a bunch of rule sets that made no sense to try and make it different. They were effectively wizards with much more wild chances of failure from what I remember.

Regardless, the source of their power is different (outside vs inside, mana/pool vs mind), while the effect is the same. If you did dispel light, would it matter that the effect was generated by a man's mind vs casting from a scroll? It's still light.

Adding a new ruleset would require a lot of extra retooling for characters/groups if you suddenly added something no one could counter. It's far easier to lump it together.

A lot of systems do this too. I recall HeroSystem has 2, you have normal/physical, and energy damage. You also had normal defense and energy defense. That's it. Of course if you declared it was the type of say Acid energy then it was acid, and if someone had an armor that was half as effective vs Acid then you got an extra bonus from it, or maybe it was an armor that only protected against acid making it very specifically tuned, still the system's complexity didn't extend to far from the basic 2 types. Having more than that would be not only more annoying, but buying defenses for every little thing quickly costs too much and you can't do anything interesting!

The original final fantasy didn't use a mana system. The argument is completely valid.


I would stick to Pathfinder. I love their ruleset and use it with a few modifications.
That's semantics. It's still a points based system to do "magicky" effects. The fact that it was done to allow for an easy rule set for people to convert their main magic system to a mana system if they desired was pretty cool.

The real reason mana isn't used in games like D&D is bacause everything takes longer the more you have to change. if I'm changing my mana pool every 40 seconds because I'm maintaining a spell it leads to more errors, more arguing and more torn paper from erasing things off the sheet. With lower numbers (1-9 spells per level and 1-9 levels) it is easier to keep track of. That still doesn't change that I use a mana system for my D&D/Pathfinder games because it makes more sense to me than having slots in your brain for memorizing the intricacies of a particular spell of a particular power. Being prepared is good, but having to memorize spells before you get to the obstacle where a particular spell like grease would be useful just makes mages generally useless. Damage or utility, pick one. You don't have enough spell slots to be effective at both.

It used a points based system still.


I have pathfinder, find no reason to use it above 0e, 1e or 2e.

That's it exactly I think.

I be interested in hearing a comparison of 5e vs 3.5/Pathfinder.

I don't know what you are comparing it to, but in 5th edition you don't need to decide what each and every spell slot is alloted to at the beginning of the day. Instead, you can cast any spell from the ones you have known (for wizards), or from the ones you have prepared (druids, clerics). Doing so doesn't un-prepare them though - you can keep using them. You can also "super" cast spells using a higher spell slot, so you don't get the Cure Minor Wounds, Cure Wounds, Cure Major Wounds silliness.

Acutally, spell point system is presented as an alternative in 5e DMG.

I guess you're just used to the THAC0 stuff? Wanting a lower AC seems so counter intuitive.