RPG is kinda rich genre on video game market, varying from turn based games with deep plot to mmorpg action grindfests. Thus some mechanics has got lots of different implementations. For example - magic.
In some games it existed to fuel powerfull spells that drain mana (unlike physical skills, which didnt require to maintain anything else than damage-related stats). In others - its just an alternative way to deal damage (with physical attacks draining energy, or both of them not using anything). Sometimes it counters the same way as physical attacks (via character's armor), sometimes it require its own stat (with armor being split to physical and magical), sometimes it completely ignore defences. Sometimes it has just one type (said "magical damage" with different debuffs, depending on exact skills (some may deal damage over time, others may stun enemy. Etc etc)), sometimes it varies (fire spells deal fire damage, ice spells - ice, and so on. With each one being tied to their type of debuff (say, cold spells will always have chance to slow down enemy. While fire spells will deal damage over time) and have their own stat to counter (a.k.a elemental resistances).

My question is - what type of magic damage do you prefer and should it have any special abilities (ignore armor, for example), or work the very same way as physical attacks?

I liked magic system in Sacred, i.e. cooldown, not mana related. I also like it when I have to use different spells in different situations. For me there should be a distinction in RPGs between warrior and a mage - warrior should be a mediocre damage dealer and tank that basically just gets you through the game with minimal fuss, whereas mage should be more demanding and at the same time more rewarding class.

So yeah to answer your question - cooldown based spells that work differently on different enemies (overcoming their different resistances) + some crowd control and utilitarian spells like magic armor and so forth.

If it isn't totally overpowered and causing great flashy destruction everywhere or doing something completely different than direct attacks, like invisibility, crowd control, monster summoning etc., then it isn't real magic! I don't want my mages to be fighters in colorful disguise, just doing constant regular damage with tiny elemental bolts or something. ;P

Magic systems in games should have some sort of resource management to them. In order to do more damage, special statuses, buffs, etc, there always needs to be a cost.

This of course means you can't make it easy to get those resources back easily.

Personally, my view is that magic should have a wide variety of effects; direct damage effects are way overdone. I don't need to have different elemental damage effects; rather, I would like more healing spells (including instant, heal-over-time, fast emergency healing, slow but efficient (MP-wise) multi-target healing), support spells (that are actually worth using), and non-combat spells (something often lacking in JRPGs and (to my impression) later WRPGs). I would argue that physical attacks should have a similar sort of resource management to them if spells do.

One shouldn't just be able to use physical attacks to completely avoid resource management when spellcasters have to worry about it.

Durability can work if implemented as a limiting factor (SaGa 1/2 (not SaGa Frontier 2 because it's too easy to escape that system), Fire Emblem (not Gaiden)) and not just there for "realism" or "immersion" (like in the Elder Scrolls).

In any case, making it too hard to get resources back provides too much of a disincentive to using magic, and as a result players find a way to avoid using it at all, making combat (especially normal encounters) rather repetitive and boring. I have seen some limitations on physical skills in some games:
* In some games, physical skills cost hit points to use. (I have also seen spells cost HP; Paladin's Quest and iis sequel, Fire Emblem, I believe Betrayal at Krondor.)
* In some games, physical skills use MP just like spells do (sometimes the resource is called something different, like TP).
* Some games implement weapon durability. Of those games, some of them also implement a similar durability for the spellbooks needed to cast those spells, but had no other limitation (SaGa 1/2, SaGa 3 remake, and most Fire Emblem games are like this).

Edit: One more: Some games have physical skills use a separate resource from what spells use (Grandia series, SaGa series from Romancing SaGa (SFC) through at least SaGa Frontier 2 (but not the RS1 remake)).

In BaK from what I recall stamina and HP are a single pool. Until stamina is drained, it's used for magic and damage is taken from it. Once stamina is drained, HP is used, and harmed when damaged, and skills are also reduced according to the HP lost.

As for the OP's question, there was another similar thread by dtgreene. But anyway, still prefer the plain mana based magic, if at all possible with some added unlimited very low level spells that act as a magic-based character's basic moves, of the kind a warrior would be able to use all the time, since a magic-based character would hardly manage anything with those same basic moves. As for types of magic, as varied and interesting as possible. Can also include physical damage, sure, but both the physical and the damage being just one of many options.

Sorry for derailing, but that bold part got me thinking.

Isn't it kind of funny, that - on the one hand - magic users in general are not allowed to wear metal armour, because it negatively affects their ability to cast magic.
But - on the other hand - magic has absolutely no problem to kill ironclad soldiers.

Shouldn't ironclad soldiers - logically - be immune to magic?
----------
From the department: questions that arise at around 1 a.m. ;)

No. It's a matter of being trained to use that sort of armor and the ways in which it limits movement. Strength factors in as well, and magic users don't have a lot of that usually, but even if they would have the strength, without having trained in it, they'd move like bad robots, cook or freeze, end up with a rust bucket due to not caring for it, get far fewer benefits due to not knowing how to actually make use of it to catch and deflect blows well and so on. And then there are the ways in which it will hinder movement no matter what and magic users may need more freedom for accurate magic gestures than heavy armor may afford. But in some games it may just be the training, if you start without armor skills but can gain them later.
As for the immunity of ironclad soldiers, armor doesn't need to fully block magic for a mage to not want it on them. Even a small reduction of the power will be felt if they have to push against it for every single thing they do.

SaGa Frontier 2 took an interesting approach to this issue.

In SF2, steel is said to absorb anima (which is the source of magic, and is supposedly found in every living being (but then there's Gustave, who has none)). From a gameplay perspective, this means that, if a character is wearing steel:
* That character will be less effective at using spell arts.
* Spell arts are less effective on the character. (Note that this only applies to damage and healing spell arts.)

The one problem with SF2's handling of steel is that it doesn't have enough of an effect to be truly noticeable; the most it can do is cut power by 50%, and if you're dealing with electrical spells, you're better off wearing rubber soles.

By the way, SF2 does something else interesting with its magic system; anybody except Gustave (who doesn't see much combat action anyway) can equip any spell art you've learned, but to actually cast such spells, you must have equipment with the required anima type equipped. For example, if you want to cast Life Water (Tree + Water), you might need to equip a Sapling Staff (Tree) and a Blue Water (Water); adding something with Flame anima would be needed if you also want to cast spells like Bushfire (Tree + Flame) and Firestorm (Flame + Tree).

It occurs to me that there's one other thing I wanted to say earlier:
* I consider Ultima 4 through 7 to have the worst magic system I've seen. Basically, in addition to MP, you must have reagents to cast a spell (and in 4 and 5 you must manually mix the reagents first). The problem is that many spells, particularly most attack spells (which are only single target and not enough of a power boost over a normal attack) and spells like Open (which was useful in Ultima 3 for eliminating the danger of chest traps), are not good enough to warrant the use of consumables every time you want to cast them. As a result, this ended up being a huge disincentive toward using magic, resulting in normal battles devolving into boring physical combats.

And If I wanted to
I could never be free
I never believed it was true
But now it's so clear to me

You can do magic
You can have anything that you desire
Magic, and you know
You're the one who can put out the fire
You know darn well
When you cast your spell you will get your way
When you hypnotize with your eyes
A heart of stone can turn to clay

Doo, doo, doo
Doo, doo, doo
Doo, doo, doo


So true.

I like the magic system in "The I of the Dragon".

All spells take a certain time to recharge depending on their cost. The cooldown is proportional to the cost of the spell vs the magic stat of your dragon. Pretty simple when it is only one spell. But for multiple, each spell that is currently on cooldown slows down the recharge time of all other spells currently on cooldown. You can increase the speed by upgrading your magic stat. You can have 12 of them active at a time and unlimited number of spells in reserve.

This gives you a choice of whether to just spam one spell relatively quickly, or send in everything you've got but be pretty exposed afterwards when all your powerful spells are on cooldown.

The standard attack oriented dragon can take minutes to recharge one powerful spell while the magic focused dragon can use several of them and recharge them faster than the first one gets his one spell back.

You unlock spells as you level and you also have to purchase the spells. The cost is proportional to the dragon you choose to play as. Combat oriented one has to spend an entire level (25 attribute points) to get one spell. The middle one has to spend 75% of a level to get one spell and the magic oriented one has to spend only 50% of a level for a single spell.

And most of the spells are suited for different situations. Making a huge crater or growing a mountain under a flying enemy is useless while it annihilates most grounded targets. Sending a slow but powerful projectile at a fast moving enemy is useless because he will dodge it easily while it is great against tough and slow targets. Some spells have incredible range and allow you to outrange most things but the projectile travels extremely slow. Some are homing, some send multiple projectiles, some are simple crowd control like fear or freeze etc. Most of the spells can be very useful and powerful or completely irrelevant depending on how and when you use them.

Not sure if I will participate yet, but tagging and throwing in a few +1s because this is a great thread.

There's also TES: Arena with its Passwall, Pitfalls, and Create Wall/Floor spells. (There's also Levitate, but that spell effect isn't as interesting as its Daggerfall/Morrowind counterpart.)

Also, don't forget being able to fortify your Personality.

I like crowd control mechanics. Spells that can take an enemy out of a fight (ice per your example) can have a greater impact than simple damage.

This is particularly important for single character games if the levels have been designed such that kiting isn't possible.