If magic cost full price... [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Lupus

Jul 6th, '04, 05:13 AM

For my next Fantasy Hero campaign I am seriously considering making magic cost full price. Racial abilities cost full price. If I allow psionics, I am certainly not going to allow them in a Power Framework or get a 1/3 discount. Magical Items will cost full price. It just seems unfair that magic should be so cheap in comparison.

For those of you who run or play in a campaign where magic is full cost I would like to hear some of your experiences. Did mages seem woefully under-powered? Did this kill the 'Fantasy' feel of the campaign? Did magic-loving players break out in open revolt? TIA
You definitely end up with fewer spells. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. :) I was definitely annoyed when I saw that mages got a break under most spell systems, but no mention was made of, say, paladin powers getting a points break... I don't see any reason for mages to get a break other than 'they're mages.' That doesn't sound right to me.

Gunrunner

Jul 6th, '04, 06:07 AM

Here is the reason as I see it: The justification for a cost break in a Multipower is that you are limited to how many powers you can use simultaneously and powers usually share the same limitations. The justification for a cost break in an EC is that all powers come from the same special effect/source and are above a certain minimum point cost. The magic system presented in FH Grimoire does not fit into any type of framework presented in 5th ED. yet it shares one restriction from each of the Multipower and Elemental Control framework: magic spells share most of their limitations (gestures, incantations, etc.) and they share the same special effect and source. So the 1/3 cost break seems to an attempt to create a unique power framework that cannot be represented by a Multipower or Elemental Control alone.

Hugh Neilson

Jul 6th, '04, 07:08 AM

If mages pay full price with no frameworks, what you tend to end up with is starting mages buying magic skill, a spell to replace armor and a spell to provide an attack. Non-combat spells become pretty rare, and mages take a long time to build any real versatility.

Considering our Warrior will have his 5/5 suit of armor, his 1 1/2d6 HKA weapon and likely a 1 to 1 1/2d6 RKA missile weapon, and spend about 4 points on WF.

The wizard needs to spend a lot of points just to equal what the warrior purchases with cash - a decent Magic Skill will cost him more than the warrior spent (5 poiints for skill w/ +1 to the roll). Or buy up his STR so he can use the same things the warrior can, which leads to the concern of stat similarity.

I view allowing the wizard some point breaks on his spells (be it 1/3 real cost, framework access or what have you) as a tradeoff for physical stats and point-free equipment enjoyed by the warrior types.

But the true test is in the game. Ask your players what each will play, assuming magic has no cost breaks. If you get a decent mix, run with it. If they all say "Warrior", "Rogue", etc. (with maybe a small amount of magic abilities for flavour), consider whether you wnat your game to have spellcasters, and what you need to do so they can be competetive.

CourtFool

Jul 6th, '04, 07:10 AM

So the 1/3 cost break seems to an attempt to create a unique power framework that cannot be represented by a Multipower or Elemental Control alone.

Thank you for your response, Gunrunner. I am not questioning why the Turakian Age uses the 1/3 cost. I simply disagree with it. I am looking for input from others who have had experience with magic costing full price.

trechriron

Jul 6th, '04, 07:41 AM

The current game I am playing in the GM started using magic at full price. I later convinced him to reduce the cost of spells. Mages were essentially more expensive warriors with a flare. In this I agree with Hugh. We have rules that you must take a talent for magic. I would go further and give them some similar requirements like martial arts. They must belong to a school or have a master, they must possess the skill, and they must possess a KS of the art.

I think the big kicker here is not "fairness" which is really subjective. It is about flavor and what you want in your game. If you like mages to be specialized and fairly combat oriented, then the full price thing is not a bad go. You will more than likely NOT be getting well rounded mages, but if that is not what you're shooting for, then no problem.

FH's magic section steps you through the magic system creation process. It is fantastic. You should start from scratch and follow that process and then tailor the rules to fit your idea. I would not be as concerned with the "fairness" of reduced cost spells, in the grand scheme, in my experience, those HKA/RKA attacks for gold are a nice counter-point.

Just my two cents...

Greatwyrm

Jul 6th, '04, 08:03 AM

I have to agree with techriron here. Everything in HERO is easier if you start with the concept then look at the rules. Think about how you want magic to work in plain language before you even pick up FREd.

Brett

Jul 6th, '04, 10:03 AM

In the comparison of CP cost and Money cost for both warriors and wizards, keep in mind that nearly all the basic spell write-ups in FHG require a OAF Expendable spell component (usually a fairly expensive one).

The way that the default Turakian Age magic system works, the cost break is probably necessary. You have to buy a skill for each arcana that you want to use (about a dozen or so). Most combat spells have an Active Point penalty of -5 to -7, so these skills need to be fairly high or you need magic skill levels. Then you still need to pay 1/3 the cost of the spell.

I guess that it depends on what restrictions you are going to put on magic. Are you going to have requirements similar to the Turakian Age magic without the cost break, or can magic users build their spells (or whatever) like superpowers?

If a character can bypass the Requires a Skill Roll or make that skill roll based on a single magic skill, many points are freed up for buying spells at full cost.

Brett

trechriron

Jul 6th, '04, 10:21 AM

In the comparison of CP cost and Money cost for both warriors and wizards, keep in mind that nearly all the basic spell write-ups in FHG require a OAF Expendable spell component (usually a fairly expensive one)...

Wow. Good points all around that I had not considered. The OAF thing combined with multiple skills and spell limitation requirements does make the 1/3 cost balance out with a lest restrictive magic system with full cost spells.

It still essentially makes magic more expensive than being a warrior, but intelligent spell choices could close that gap by giving the mage abilities that simply cannot be accomplished with a sword... :D

Thanks Brett.

UltraRob

Jul 6th, '04, 10:56 AM

Just to play devil's advocate here, there is a valid point in having your players pay full cost for spells. As noted, players will end up with fewer and more combat-oriented spells, but at the same time those are the spells that they will need to survive anyways in most FH games.
So what you'll end up with is a early to midranked Magic User who knows a few (presumably) combat spells and maybe one or two other things when the campaign starts off. As the game progresses, he can learn/buy other minor spells and variants of the old ones to develop more fully as a Magic User.
Yes, at first he might seem like an "expensive warrior with more flash", but in the long run he'll end up being more veratile and having a more definite focus and evolution than he might as a character with a shotgun of low-cost spells.
As well, when you start throwing in heavy limitations, like the aforementioned Expendible Foci, you start getting costs that are comperable to even 1/3 ratio spell costs anyways. When I require a minimum of -2 worth of limitations on spells in a game world, then I will get spells costing in the 5-30 range at most, and probably lower than that. With 150pt characters, that doesn't seem too bad to me.

Rob

Nuke

Jul 6th, '04, 11:23 AM

Thank you for your response, Gunrunner. I am not questioning why the Turakian Age uses the 1/3 cost. I simply disagree with it. I am looking for input from others who have had experience with magic costing full price.

We pay full price for magic in our campaign. Sure, the mages may start out weaker, but they end up more powerful in the end. Warriors hit brick walls with weapon strength maxes whereas a mage just buys up his attack. Warriors can only sweep so many foes where the mage fireballs.

Most fantasy games use this concept where mages start a little bit underpowered and then pass up later. I consider this the norm.

We have plenty of variety in our spells from our casters. With a good -3 in limitations being typical (gestures, incantations, focus, side effect, skill roll, extra time), spells aren't all that expensive?

dbsousa

Jul 6th, '04, 11:29 AM

When I ran a Fantasy Hero 4th ed game (That took place 500 years after a 2nd Ed D&D game I ran years earlier) I used Full price spells with at least -1 in Lims. The results, If I remember, were as follows:

1: Low active point spells
2: Few spells per character
3: Not many Advantages on any given spell.

If I were doing it in 5th, I would allow Elemental Controls for one reason: It makes Dispel Magic truly harrowing.

Rick

Jul 6th, '04, 11:30 AM

Hey, no one I've seen ever complains about wizards getting tons of spells (and in turn POWER) in D&D when fighters get relativly little (even W/feats). Full price, as I see it, represents a world were magic tends to be subtle or extremely rare. To play a game like L5R or Forgotten realms or even starwars (W/the Force) magic is common, for the PC's anyway, and costs should reflect this.

Where as in D&D level progression favors the Wizard, in Hero point progression favors the fighter, I don't pay for my Sword, armor or anything not a skill, perk, attribute or talent where as the wizard pays for almost everything on his/her character sheet.

I know the original post didn't ask for this but I've seen this opinion elsewhere and I just felt the need to finally post a counter opinion (even if it was unsolicated).

Hugh Neilson

Jul 6th, '04, 11:58 AM

We pay full price for magic in our campaign. Sure, the mages may start out weaker, but they end up more powerful in the end. Warriors hit brick walls with weapon strength maxes whereas a mage just buys up his attack. Warriors can only sweep so many foes where the mage fireballs.

There's a few comments above that make this basic point - I'll pick this one as representative. My question is this: do the warriors just stop spending their xp? If not, it has to go somewhere making the warrior more powerful, or more well rounded. Maybe they buy Deadly Blow abilities. Perhaps they buy KA's with Trigger to simulate multiple sword swings in a phase without Sweep penalties, or Area Effect KA's to simulate firing multiple arrows to hit multiple targets. Penalty skill levels, anyone? 8 PSL's for hit locations means all my shots are to the head.

Or do they just by more and more skill levels that are less and less useful since they always hit at max damage and get a 15 DCV anyway?

CourtFool

Jul 6th, '04, 12:10 PM

It is a good point that I need to start with the concept of how magic works first and then do the number crunching.

In my opinion the 'warrior gets his sword for free' argument is weak. There is no restriction on the wizard grabbing armor and sword as well. Spells as attacks are far more versitile than swords so I do not feel the comparison is correct.

In the last two Fantasy Hero campaigns I ran every PC was a mage. I allowed magic to be bought in Multipowers and I believed this to be a major contributing factor to why the group was so magic heavy.

I would like to allow a variety of magics from wild talents to learning specific words and rituals to focus mana. Therefore, the usual limitations (gestures, incantations) are not standard. There would be many different ways to use magic. I hope this explains a little better.

Outsider

Jul 6th, '04, 12:15 PM

While the "casters start weak, then surpass warriors" model is the norm, you run into a problem if your individual games dont really run long enough for the switch to happen. Also, there is the problem that, until you reach that middle ground, your players running casters will feel like window dressing, and after it, your warriors will. Though the warriors, by that time, will often have grown in stature/renown/fame to the point where their power is less personal and more political.

Anyway... The main types of casters I've run into as far as full points for spells games fall into 3 types :

1) The Enhanced Melee : A character with one or two "spells" that greatly enhance (unbalance) their melee abilities, that the player will try to get by the GM without actual regular Skill Rolls being required ("Activation roll is the same thing!"). Typical "spells" of this sort will typically be things A) like a very slow loss Aid to STR that is cast (sometimes twice, to get max effect) every morning, at lunch, and so on, or B) Personal Immunity Darkness, so the character's opponent's OCV and DCV are often greatly reduced. Admittedly, this particular type of character isnt discouraged by making the spells cheaper.

2) The Hand Sitter : The character made by a player who realizes that it is point inefficient to try to compete with non-casters in combat, and so makes a character who's spells all, or almost all focus on out of combat uses. Nothing really wrong with this, but the player ends up not really doing much when there is a combat. Occasionally, his out of combat spells are so well chosen and effective, that the other players end up largely sitting on their hands when there isnt a combat. Admittedly on this type, making the spells cheaper might alleviate the combat hand sitting by the caster (who can now afford combat spells) it wont really help the hand sitting by the rest of the group out of combat (since the caster may have even more flexibility in non combat situations)

3) The One Trick Pony : The character only has points for a few spells, so he makes a character who only does a few things, but does them very powerfully. Given that most GMs rely on more than just a lack of real points to limit their caster's abilities, and the OTP will only be happy if he gets to be significantly more effective than anyone else when it comes to his one trick, these types are usually less than common.

Outsider

Jul 6th, '04, 12:18 PM

Ternaugh

Jul 6th, '04, 12:36 PM

My last FH campaign world used full price spells. To be fair, though, the campaign started many years ago, with 4th ed rules. Wizards were powerful in combat, as would be expected, but were also required to have quite a bit of noncombat skills and magic. Warriors tended to be well-trained, and deadly. And in one incarnation of the gaming group (about 10 years ago!), political maneuvering became paramount (thanks to one of the players, Jason Vester, later of "Broken Kingdoms" fame). The last mutation resulted in a high fantasy/clockpunk environment, with characters receiving an extra 25 points for character development (to become 100 Base/75 Disads). Warriors put this to good use with extra skill levels and such, while almost all mages added straight to spells (typical mages had 50 points or so in spells).

To be honest with you, though, the average power level of most spells was below typical FHG entries. Mages had to be more than just a "magical shotgun" toward enemies. So, for example, the Earth Mage in the group also had spells that allowed shaping stone for building or sculpting, while the Storm Mage was able to influence local weather patterns to help farmers.

Of course, YMMV,
JoeG

Hugh Neilson

Jul 6th, '04, 02:44 PM

The problem with the mage picking up a sword is that, without spending points in other areas (like skill levels, stats, and such) it just isnt equivalent. Most GMs also restrict caster's ability to wear armor as a 'genre' consideration.

Exactly - the problem with "The wizard can pick up the same items" becomes the fact that warriors are optimized to use these items. Mages can't be optimized for weapon and armor use and buy their spells (at full or reduced costs) and related skills - they have to make a choice.

In the campaign I'm currently playing in, we're allowing magic via multipowers. My wizard has an 8 STR. If I had to pay full points for each spell, I doubt I would be running a spellcaster at all, and he sure wouldn't have an 8 STR - he'd need a higher STR to carry at least light armor, a shield and some cbackup weaponry because spells just wouldn't be reliable enough.

Rick

Jul 6th, '04, 04:55 PM

Well, the thing stopping the wizard from picking up a sword and armor is CONCEPT, and then even a Battle mage will still run into issues with skill points as he has to start spending point on CSL, Wf, and PSL. Then he has to spend points on a grip of KS, power skills, maybe talents, and CSL for his magic. Spending full points on magic is why Mako's Character in Conan couldn't fight and had very slow acting magic, powerful perhaps but very limited.

Lupus

Jul 6th, '04, 06:14 PM

Basically, I can't ever see anyone getting a consensus between magic and non-magic, since both sides see it their own way and go 'hey, the other side's a lot more powerful.' cf: the endless fighter vs wizard debate on D&D forums.

My argument in D&D is always thus: if the fighter is the combat specialist, and by necessity isn't that great outside of combat, then he should SHINE in combat. The wizard shouldn't expect to be as good as him. PErhaps as good short-term, but not long-term. This is because the wizard has a host of out-of-combat abilities that the fighter lacks. And quite powerful ones. And in D&D, combat isn't all there is, so that /does/ factor into the overall balance level.

Now, that doesn't quite apply to HERO, since characters aren't as constrained by 'class'. Everyone can have a bit of magic, and everyone can have a bit of fighting, and everyone can have a bit of non-combat skill stuff. If you try to do too much, you'll suck at everything, but hey. At the same time, I think people should think less about classes when in HERO... the 'wizard' is a character who has forsaken physical abilities to spend points on magic. That's a decision they made, and frankly, I don't see why it should be more points-efficient than any other choice. :) Of course, someone who spends all their points on combat abilities looks pretty scary, too. But with a 1/3 break, I think you'd quickly look scarier with spells. Basically, with seriously cheap spells, you quickly end up being able to do everything a warrior can, and more. Sure, you have to chant and gesture. But who cares?

What about a middle ground - instead of a 1/3 cost, perhaps an extra -2 limitation called 'spell'? That would reduce the cost, but not as much as 1/3 (unless there were no other limitations on the spell). What would people feel about it then?

Also: what about the holy warrior who takes a divine ability to enhance his sword, or a healing effect? Or the priest with turn undead? What should happen to their costs? As far as FH goes (I don't have Turakian Age), there's no discussion about reducing their costs... do people see this as a problem?

Nuke

Jul 7th, '04, 07:49 AM

There's a few comments above that make this basic point - I'll pick this one as representative. My question is this: do the warriors just stop spending their xp? If not, it has to go somewhere making the warrior more powerful, or more well rounded. Maybe they buy Deadly Blow abilities. Perhaps they buy KA's with Trigger to simulate multiple sword swings in a phase without Sweep penalties, or Area Effect KA's to simulate firing multiple arrows to hit multiple targets. Penalty skill levels, anyone? 8 PSL's for hit locations means all my shots are to the head.

Or do they just by more and more skill levels that are less and less useful since they always hit at max damage and get a 15 DCV anyway?

Responses are always hard to deal with on these posts, and I broke my own rule of replying without explaining how our campaign works. I play in a high fantasy campaign (although I'd really call it medium fantasy). We are based on 100+75 points (yes, some of you will gasp), but everybody in the world is scaled accordingly.

Our GM did some stuff similar (yet very different) to Killer Shrike, and has created several wonderful warrior and mage progression paths. This limits both classes on what they can do and when. For example, a newbie mage does not know how to mage a "triggered" spell, but an advanced warrior can do a "weapon storm". Overall, the progression has proven to be very balanced between the "classes", and the classes aren't mutually exclusive. My character has followed the path of a priest and a warrior.

The classes have abilities that are limited by gaining certain knowledge skills. This gives the GM good control over when the players gain powers, and gives wonderful roleplaying opportunities for the characters to seek out and learn new stuff. I know that Turakian has a lot of these things as well, I think our campaigns just implement it in a completely different way.

Markdoc

Jul 8th, '04, 03:46 AM

We ran a number of games where magic was at full price, and we didn't lack for mages. It is fair to say that the fighters who specialised were pretty awesome in combat, but the *most* effective fighters were the "holy warrior" types, who had a small store of mostly cheap, battle magics (Flash is a particularly nasty one, though the price change in FREd has somewhat improved that). Pure mages still used armour and weapons, but it's true thay were not as effective in HTH as fighters - the equipment was a backup, and their other powers in combat (mind control, illusions, area effect missile spells, etc) kept them more than competitive in the body-count stakes.

One intersting thing I noted is that if you use full price spells, successful mages tended to have a reasonable number of cheap but useful spells (a few inches of flight, a no-sleep spell, see in the dark spell, and so on) and then one or two zorchers - a couple of badass fire spells, or a big illusion or mind control spell, which was their main schtick. Where you get into problems with the full cost approach is if you try to play DnD with Hero, where your mage has a whole range of powerful spells: you end up with a bunch of underpowered spells, none of which are very useful.

However these days I allow multipowers, to give mages more versatility (I like mages to have a lot of spells) - the trade off is that I limit magic heavily so that most of it is not very useful in combat. I want a sort of sword and sorcery feel, where fighting is mostly left to fighters. To be fair I also allow multipowers for "cool feats" for non-mages: this is also limited by constraints of "realism" so that these powers don't tread on the mages toes. That seems to work well. Personally, I would never allow the Turakian age 1/3 cost approach: even multipowers need to be carefully watched for their unbalancing effect - this essentially gives you the best points of a multipower and an elemental control, without any of the limitations. If you look at the sample characters supplied in the book, the mage is far and away the most powerful character in the party, even taking out his kick-ass magical staff.

However, it seems to me that those who argue that fighters have the edge because they get "free stuff" usually also add the rider that "but we just don't allow mages to use weapons or armour". In that case, giving the mages some kind of price break would be justified.

cheers, Mark

Blue Jogger

Jul 8th, '04, 04:35 AM

What about a middle ground - instead of a 1/3 cost, perhaps an extra -2 limitation called 'spell'? That would reduce the cost, but not as much as 1/3 (unless there were no other limitations on the spell). What would people feel about it then?

I like it! :yes: I think it fixes the problem with the expensive spells being too cheap under 1/3 rule since they're the ones loaded down with limitations.

Outsider

Jul 8th, '04, 07:14 AM

Or you could make thesize of the "Spell" limitation proportional to the percentage of the mage's total points are spent on spells...

UltraRob

Jul 8th, '04, 02:02 PM

Or you could make thesize of the "Spell" limitation proportional to the percentage of the mage's total points are spent on spells...

Or, it might vary depending on the type of magic user.

Really, "Spell" as a limitation should come with some limitations built into it.

As well, this really isn't any different than the 1/3rd thing...Think about it, the "Spell" limitation at -2 means the Active Points are divided by....wait for it.....3! As a minimum limitation of -2, plus the typical -2 worth of regular limitations on top of it, you're going to end up dividing the Active Points by 5 in most cases...30AP powers would cost 5pts, 60AP powers would cost 12pts....90Ap powers would cost 18pts..........Wait....that might actually work quite well when I think about it.... :cheers: Have to give this one some more thought...

Rob

Lupus

Jul 8th, '04, 03:41 PM

Or, it might vary depending on the type of magic user.

Really, "Spell" as a limitation should come with some limitations built into it.

As well, this really isn't any different than the 1/3rd thing...Think about it, the "Spell" limitation at -2 means the Active Points are divided by....wait for it.....3! As a minimum limitation of -2, plus the typical -2 worth of regular limitations on top of it, you're going to end up dividing the Active Points by 5 in most cases...30AP powers would cost 5pts, 60AP powers would cost 12pts....90Ap powers would cost 18pts..........Wait....that might actually work quite well when I think about it.... :cheers: Have to give this one some more thought...

Rob
*grins* It's quite deceptively simple, isn't it? :) I have no idea how it'd actually work out, though. I haven't playtested it, and won't get the chance in the near future.

Blue Jogger

Jul 8th, '04, 04:59 PM

Ok, a typical 15 Active Point minor cantrip spell might have -1/4 incantation, -1/4 gestures, and maybe a -1/2 Requires a Skill Roll. In any case, -1 of limitations is not unreasonable to dig up.
Normally, that's 7 points.
1/3 price, that's 2 points.
-2 Spell Limitation instead, that's 4 points. :yes:

Now, your typical 2D6 RKA Explode Fireball (45 Active), and say -2 of Limitations.
Normally, that's 15 points.
1/3 price, that's 5 points.
-2 Spell Limitation instead, that's 9 points. :yes:

Where it runs into problems (IMHO) is the 105 Active Point spell with only a -1 limitation.
Normally, that's 52 points.
1/3 price, that's 17 points. :jawdrop:
-2 Spell Limitation instead, 26 points.

UltraRob

Jul 8th, '04, 06:57 PM

Where it runs into problems (IMHO) is the 105 Active Point spell with only a -1 limitation.
Normally, that's 52 points.
1/3 price, that's 17 points. :jawdrop:
-2 Spell Limitation instead, 26 points.

So actually, it seems to work almost perfectly. ^_^ A 105pt spell should NOT be cheap under any circumstances, we don't want our players throwing them around casually. (Unless you DO want it, then that's another story...) 26pts means they will only be able to afford a few of these babies, maybe 2 tops, and that sounds pretty good to me. :thumbup:

Rob

Killer Shrike

Aug 4th, '04, 09:19 PM

If you are concerned about MUs having an unfair discount in points, consider that warriors need only pay for a familiarity and then buy a weapon and some armor with money for their abilities, and then just dump their points into stats and CSLs.

However, if you want to put everyone on the same playing field, try going to a FAM based Magic System, where a Magic User buys a FAM with a Spell Effect. Go with a set list of Spells with Active Point caps in the same ball park as the Real Cost of weapons when looked at as Killing Attacks.

The Totemic Shamanism and Piedragemas styles on my website are of this type.

CourtFool

Aug 4th, '04, 09:23 PM

Killer Shrike

Aug 4th, '04, 09:41 PM

Thanks, Killer Shrike, but I still disagree with this argument.
Not questioning your judgement, but Im interested in your reasoning just from the standpoint of seeing all sides of an argument.

CourtFool

Aug 4th, '04, 10:52 PM

Not questioning your judgement, but Im interested in your reasoning just from the standpoint of seeing all sides of an argument.

Question it all you want. You will just be wrong. ;)

My standpoint is, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, that nothing stops the user of magic from picking up a sword and armor.

"Oh, but the warrior will be able to put more points into skill using that sword."

Well, duh. That is the way it should be. If you spread yourself out, you are not going to be as good in any one area. Making magic cheap allows the user of magic to be nearly as combat effective as the warrior with a sword and launch his fireball when he is ready to stop toying with his opponent.

I think, and I warn you being a llama...what the hell do I know, that a lot of the arguments for cheap magic here come as baggage from D&D where wizards are more powerful. At least at higher levels. It seems to me that even the designers realized this problem to some extent and tried to balance it with a lot of arbitrary limits (once per day, no armor, weak weapon selection, weak hit points). Many of these same limitations show up in Fantasy Hero which also rubs me the wrong way, but that is best saved for another thread.

This was not meant as an attack on anyone that posted on a thread. Killer Shrike just opened it up for my opinion such as it is. Try not to do that again...'K? :D

Killer Shrike

Aug 4th, '04, 11:22 PM

So your saying that the reason you dont think its somewhat balanced is because a Magic User can be good at both HtH and Magic use?

But if that were true, the reverse would seem to be true as well.

What that viewpoint doesnt take into account is that it takes more than a FAM to make a warrior good. Characteristics, CSLs, and any other salient abilities all contribute to making a competant warrior.

Take two baseline characters for instance and only allow them 2 character points to make an extreme example. One buys Common Melee Weapons Fam for 2 points and uses starting gp to acquire a Common Melee weapon of some sort.

The other character spends their 2 points on something conducive to Magic Use. Of course 2 points wont buy much of anything in the way of a Magic System really, so for all intents and purposes the second character is hosed. They could acquire a weapon as well, but unless they spend 1 of the 2 points they are saving for an eventual Magic System they will suffer nonproficiency penalties.

They get into a fight; the 1st character will almost certainly win.

So, at the low end, the fighter obviously has an edge, pun intended.

Now scale the points up a bit. Lets say both characters have spent 50 points on improving their respective professions.

The 1st character, our intrepid fighter, has spent 50 points on stats and CSLs. Lets say 30 points for +10 DEX (and +1 SPD figured, as well as +4 OCV and DCV), 10 points for +5 CON, 10 points for +10 STR (and a net gain of +1 PD, +1 ED, +2 REC, +8 STUN, +2" of leap, and quadrupled lifting STR). Their OCV & DCV is now a 7. They will hit more often and be hit less. They go sooner in initiative, and have an extra action. They can take more STUN, are staggered less often, and thus die less easily. They can carry more without encumbrance, they can use a weapon with a higher STR Min, and they can wear heavier armor without penalty.

The 2nd character, our stalwart Magic User, has 52 points available, since he didnt spend his 1st 2 points from the previous example. Depending on what Magic System is in use, he needs to spend this 52 points on a variety of things. He might need a Magic Skill Roll for some systems, and a pretty decent one at that. Some Systems require multiple Skills, but we'll go with best case scenario so lets say he spends 9 points on a single Skill for a Base Roll + 3. That leaves him with 43 points. If his magic System uses a Multipower he could buy a 30 point reserve and 12 points in slots (about 10 to 12 slots). He uses the extra point to buy a FAM with a weapon, but with a STR of 10 its a small one.

Those 10 to 12 spells had better be good (and with only 30 Active Points, they cant be THAT good), because the 1st character is going to kick the 2nd characters hiney if they arent. So buying a weapon FAM and picking up a weaponsdoes almost nothing for the 2nd character because they dont have enough secondary abilities to back it up. Even if they can wear mundane armor, the character is so weak that they will be encumbered by anything worth wearing.

And even if their spells are fantastic, the MU is still going to have a hard time hitting the Fighter due to the difference in the CV's, and the Fighter has an extra action.

And so on. As the points escalate, the Magic User eventually catches up and surpasses the non Magic User (mostly because CHAR Max is reached by the non-MU and the over efficient gains from that aspect are slowed down), but usually just in terms of flexibility and utility. An equal pointed non Magic User still has the freedom to spend their points on things that make them competitive.

Personally, I think the Turakian divide by 3 is too much of a discount, but Magic Systems that force the wielder to pay full price without the benefit of Power Frameworks are too weak compared to non Magic Users who get their weapons and armor for money rather than points in my experience, particularly at lower point ranges.

YMMV obviously, but personally if I showed up to play in a GM's FH campaign and they indicated that the only Magic System available required the full RC to be paid for all Spells with no Frameworks allowed, I'd smile politely and play a non MU, secure in the knowledge that I would be better off to do so.

On the other hand, if you made characters pay the RC of Weapons & Equipment, then I could see your point.

Killer Shrike

Aug 5th, '04, 01:57 AM

Also: what about the holy warrior who takes a divine ability to enhance his sword, or a healing effect? Or the priest with turn undead? What should happen to their costs? As far as FH goes (I don't have Turakian Age), there's no discussion about reducing their costs... do people see this as a problem?
I do see it as a problem. It essentially gives a big discount to a single SFX (Magic Spells), which is unfair.

I really dont like the divide by 3 "Turakian" Magic. It blows every framework out of the water, and there's no way for a non-spellcaster to compete with that, really, and the longer play progresses the more apparant it would become since each 1 xp the MU gets translates into 3 character points worth of magic if they choose to spend it on boosting their power.

The divide by 3 could be made to work in some settings, but it would take a more even handed discounting for non-Spells. However, its incorporation as the defacto official Magic System (being the Magic System for the default Fantasy Setting) is somewhat off putting to me.

arcady

Aug 5th, '04, 02:10 AM

I am looking for input from others who have had experience with magic costing full price.I ran a game of Fantasy Hero in the first edition.

It was full price then, and there tended to be spells that had a limitation value of 6, 7, 8 or more... often burden down by all manner of extreme and impractical limitations.

arcady

Aug 5th, '04, 04:53 AM

I think, and I warn you being a llama...what the hell do I know, that a lot of the arguments for cheap magic here come as baggage from D&D where wizards are more powerful. At least at higher levels.In DnD 3.x, the mages are only more powerful if the fighters don't know how to build effective feat chains.

I once played an archer fighter who at level 11 was dishing out a reliable 40+ points of damage every round, with a decent AC, high hit points, and a +23 to hit bonus.

That number bring my 'average' roll and not my max, and not subject to a save or magic resistance, I outclassed every mage thrown at me, and every mage the other players tried to build.

Generally, in most DnD games I've played, the fighters and rogues stay more powerful throughout the levels - but the mages gain the ability to do area attacks and wierd effects.

Built by people who know how to 'game' the system, rogues will always outclass fighters who will always outclass mages. Clerics I'm a little less sure on... Built by average players clerics will outclass, but I'm not convinced the real number-bunnies won't still find my scale holds for them.

Hugh Neilson

Aug 5th, '04, 06:14 AM

Question it all you want. You will just be wrong. ;)

My standpoint is, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, that nothing stops the user of magic from picking up a sword and armor.

"Oh, but the warrior will be able to put more points into skill using that sword."

Well, duh. That is the way it should be. If you spread yourself out, you are not going to be as good in any one area. Making magic cheap allows the user of magic to be nearly as combat effective as the warrior with a sword and launch his fireball when he is ready to stop toying with his opponent.

Assuming I agree this is a problem, why wouldn't the solution be to charge full points for magic and require "equipment users" to pay points for their equipment? You want a KA, pay the freight.

You want a magical KA? Pay the freight. Buy "familiarity - fireball" and buy a fireball. To reduce the cost, you can put limitations like Gestures, Incantations, Extra Time, Extra END, etc. on it.

You want a sword KA? Pay the freight. Buy "familiarity - sword" and buy a sword. To reduce the cost, you can put limitations like Real Weapon and OAF on it.

Presently, whether the system favours those with inherent abilities or those using equipment depends on how powerful the equipment is allowed to be, how readily available it is, and how easy it is for characters to obtain the resources to purchase it. If everyone pays points for all abilities, the playing field is levelled.

bblackmoor

Aug 5th, '04, 07:04 AM

Presently, whether the system favours those with inherent abilities or those using equipment depends on how powerful the equipment is allowed to be, how readily available it is, and how easy it is for characters to obtain the resources to purchase it.

Something to keep in mind is the type of game you want to run. In a game where magicians are powers unto themselves, much like they are in the Ars Magica game, I think it's completely reasonable for magicians to simply have more points than the sword-swingers. You do not expect Superman to be built on the same number of points as is Jimmie Olsen. Why would you expect Magnamaximus the Mage to be built on the same number of points as Brunk the Slayer? I think most genre fiction falls into this category.

On the other hand, if what you want is a game where magicians are less powerful, or at the very least less efficient, than their swordbearing counterparts, then by all means, give magicians the same number of points as the grunts. The result will be that the magician will have to spend dozens of points to accomplish what the grunt can do by spending a handful points, at most. The magician will be marginalized, and the grunts will take center stage. There are not a lot of examples of this sort of setting in the source material, but there are a few. It's somewhat uncommon.

If you want the spellslingers and swordswingers balanced, and approximately equal in their abilitires, then make them both pay points for everything, just like in a superhero game. Arrow and armor, or venemous ray and ward of binding, it all costs basically the same. This style of setting is probably as common as the mage-as-superhero style.

So it really just depends on what kind of game you want to run.

Kraven Kor

Aug 5th, '04, 02:36 PM

The problem with the mage picking up a sword is that, without spending points in other areas (like skill levels, stats, and such) it just isnt equivalent. Most GMs also restrict caster's ability to wear armor as a 'genre' consideration.

Exactly.

Fighter pays a few points for weapon proficiency, a penalty skill to offset DCV penalties from armor, and then most of his "combat points" are used to buy skill levels, dex, defense manuever, martial arts...

Mage pays for talent/skill to use magic, his spells, and maybe has enough left over for a skill level or two, depending on how you set it up.

In my campaign, wizards and fighters are relatively equal at dealing out damage, the wizards generally doing less to several targets while the fighters go one at a time, but it balances due to how they were "made" to buy their skills and abilities to come up with a functional character. This balance was mostly what I was considering when I designed my magic rules and assisted on characters.

Markdoc

Aug 6th, '04, 03:57 AM

>>>Something to keep in mind is the type of game you want to run. In a game where magicians are powers unto themselves, much like they are in the Ars Magica game, I think it's completely reasonable for magicians to simply have more points than the sword-swingers. You do not expect Superman to be built on the same number of points as is Jimmie Olsen. Why would you expect Magnamaximus the Mage to be built on the same number of points as Brunk the Slayer? I think most genre fiction falls into this category.<<<

Yeah, but as any successful GM can tell you, fiction ain't gaming. I take your point that the system needs to be tailored to the game you want to run, but most players would set up a howl if you told them that certain player "classes" would get more points than others "just because". The only real reason that balance in a game is important is because of the players. In theory, good players should be able to deal with differing power levels, but I have never seen it lead to a happy conclusion.

>>>On the other hand, if what you want is a game where magicians are less powerful, or at the very least less efficient, than their swordbearing counterparts, then by all means, give magicians the same number of points as the grunts. The result will be that the magician will have to spend dozens of points to accomplish what the grunt can do by spending a handful points, at most. The magician will be marginalized, and the grunts will take center stage. There are not a lot of examples of this sort of setting in the source material, but there are a few. It's somewhat uncommon.<<<

I'm not meaning to be rude, but have you ever run a FH game? In games where mages and fighter types have the same amount of points, I have lost track of the number of doughty warriors who have been entangled, blinded, sent flying kilometres into the sky or simply torn apart by summoned demons. In no way are mages marginalized by having the same points as fighter types: my hardest task as a GM was keeping the mages from dominating play, to the point where my current magic systems heavily limit magic-use in combat. Depending on the game setting and house rules the balance can shift one way or the other, but it is certainly not general rule. It's true that the fighter can do more with their free weapons than mages, due to superior physical stat.s, but that 10 points the fighter spends on one more point of speed can buy the wizard a summoning spell that gives him a demon that is faster, stronger and does more harm or a spell that teleports his enemy a kilometer into the sky...

>>>If you want the spellslingers and swordswingers balanced, and approximately equal in their abilitires, then make them both pay points for everything, just like in a superhero game. Arrow and armor, or venemous ray and ward of binding, it all costs basically the same. This style of setting is probably as common as the mage-as-superhero style.<<<

This is how we ran our first FH games and while I admit it balances the characters, it adds some odd variance from the usual fantasy tropes as regards acquiring stuff.

cheers, Mark

Eosin

Aug 6th, '04, 06:30 AM

Having the benifit of playing in a game with some tweaked PCs - magic at full cost is FUBAR. Under that system, I never played a mage or had one played in a game that I ran. Instead, what I played was a brutal warrior who could also unload a cheap trick or two that allowed me to wax the floor with a strictly non-magical fighter type.

FREX:
"The Sword-Saint" Spells = AID to DEX (Battle Trance).
"The Battlelord" Spells = AID to STR + Force Field
"The Jedi" = Forget the mind stuff let me unload the Defensive Maneuver, Combat Sence, Increased Running, & Superhuman SPD.

ETC.... All of these use fighter builds that sacrafice a single Overall in exchange for a huge boost to overall combat.

On the otherhand, with the 0.33 cost multiplier - the group has two wizards that while still out mached by the fighter types can hold their own and even shine under the right occassion.

bblackmoor

Aug 6th, '04, 06:46 AM

In no way are mages marginalized by having the same points as fighter types: my hardest task as a GM was keeping the mages from dominating play, to the point where my current magic systems heavily limit magic-use in combat. Depending on the game setting and HOUSE RULES...

Bingo: if you give mages and non-mages the same points, and make them adhere to the same rules, but don't require non-mages to pay for weapons and equipment, the non-mages dominate. Period. The only way the situation you describe could take place is if you gave the mages more points or you imposed a house rule which swung the pendulum in the mages' favor.

bblackmoor

Aug 6th, '04, 06:51 AM

most players would set up a howl if you told them that certain player "classes" would get more points than others "just because".

You seem to think that having 150 points is somehow different from having 50 points and being given a 66% discount on what you can buy with it.

lazarus

Aug 6th, '04, 08:01 AM

Thought:

Have a points pool for starting equipment. Something like 100/100/50. Then, allow Mages to be able to read spells out of spellbooks or scrolls... but have the lim of Extra Time (2 Phases). This would more-or-less balance it out properly, I think.

Laz doesn't yet have FH, and is still thinking about his world, but will do something like that.

Killer Shrike

Aug 6th, '04, 01:47 PM

I respect Markdocs pov, but again my own experiences differ widely from his as far as the disparity btwn MUs and non-MUs.

Ive run many different FH campaigns at various power levels (typically higher however, like in the 250-350 range), and my experience has been quite the opposite. Non-MU's overall are better than MU's. The MU's balance by having the ability to spike with their spells, but the non-MUs are sustained and consistent.

It's like the difference between sustained strength and jerk strength.

In my current setting of San Dora I have over a dozen completely different Magic Systems in play, all balanced in different ways. So far seven different kinds have seen play. Guess what? While the MU's are powerful and not to be discounted, so are the non-MU's. Nobody felt like there was an unfair disparity in power levels.

None of my Systems are as discounted as the Turakian divide by three however; I personally think that's a bit too much. Compared to an Elemental Control, the closest official construct in the game, its much much better.

arcady

Aug 6th, '04, 01:49 PM

I'm squarely in the camp of 'full costs for spells is too much'.

The 1/3 costing of Turakian Age is a viable option, but the skill requirements there might still leave a mage weak.

If we compare the sample characters in the back of the Fantasy Hero book - remove 20 points from the mage in there (because he was built on 170 while the others were all built on 150), and he's clearly the weak link. Of course just how weak is a matter of what you remove - you could cut raw power and make it obvious to make a point, or you could cut the flavor to make a counter point, but you'd probably come up short and end up making a third point: mages have to sacrifice flavor just to be on or close to on par with the others.

For Fahla, my mages will be working with VPPs and skill rolls. There are four VPPs, one for each element, but an unlimited number of skills - which each skill reflecting a style of magic one might know: tantric, battle, ritual, blood-magic, and so on...

I'll probably do the VPPs in a manner similar to 'The Gift' from FH. So it's a divide by 5 system. In addition, I'll let it be pushed and combined with other mages.

But the cost of entry is high - in Fahla if you don't manifest magic by puberty you never will, and the practice is dangerous, all spells will have side effects and a high END cost. The end result will need to be a system that easily kills mages with low skill rolls, but allows the high skill rolled mages to thrive. The 'university' at Coinic (one of the largest cities in the world) estimates nine out of ten mages die in their teens to their own magic - as a result, they restrict their teachings to slaves officially owned by the royal family.

The mages can get powerful, but have a lot of complications on that power.

I've still got to figure that out, but I think it will work.

In my setting you won't have the warriors who walk around with one or two spells to boost them up - being a mage is a life long dedication.

You need to consider balance, but I think genre is even more important. With fantasy you're simulating a genre.

Think of why you're not playing DnD. A lot of people leave DnD because it's just too game and not enough story or simulation. DnD simulates DnD, not fantasy - it has a logic that falls apart even if play balance is roughly preserved, and a lot of the limits put in to ensure this are the factors that drive so many of us away.

Now that you've landed on Fantasy Hero, the last thing you should do is recreate the issues that led you away from DnD.

Make sure your magic system makes sense from a genre perspective. Play balance is important, but don't sacrifice genre to it.

Xiawarr

Aug 7th, '04, 10:56 AM

Assuming I agree this is a problem, why wouldn't the solution be to charge full points for magic and require "equipment users" to pay points for their equipment? You want a KA, pay the freight.

You want a magical KA? Pay the freight. Buy "familiarity - fireball" and buy a fireball. To reduce the cost, you can put limitations like Gestures, Incantations, Extra Time, Extra END, etc. on it.

You want a sword KA? Pay the freight. Buy "familiarity - sword" and buy a sword. To reduce the cost, you can put limitations like Real Weapon and OAF on it.

Presently, whether the system favours those with inherent abilities or those using equipment depends on how powerful the equipment is allowed to be, how readily available it is, and how easy it is for characters to obtain the resources to purchase it. If everyone pays points for all abilities, the playing field is levelled.

I agree.

I've always had trouble with allowing the purchase of abilities (e.g. weapons and armor) with money! The Hero System is based on points for a reason. Making everyone pay points for everything (although crossing over into the "superheroic" style of campaign) solves the balance of power arguments. Everyone pays points for everything. Then, if you do allow for things like multipowers (and I do!) then allow it for everyone. Wizards would have "spellbook" multipowers; fighters would have "martial feats" multipowers.

As I have stated on a previous (old) thread, I don't like bean counting in my RPGs. So, I prefer an abstract house rule that combines the "Money" Perk with a 3d6 die roll and a pre-constructed table for equipment availability; rather than actual handing out gold and the "post-adventure shopping spree" (hand me the equipment list... now, let's see a masterwork sword costs...). Do a search on my handle, if you want to track down the house rule. ;)

Xiawarr

Aug 7th, '04, 11:01 AM

>>>>>>If you want the spellslingers and swordswingers balanced, and approximately equal in their abilitires, then make them both pay points for everything, just like in a superhero game. Arrow and armor, or venemous ray and ward of binding, it all costs basically the same. This style of setting is probably as common as the mage-as-superhero style.<<<

This is how we ran our first FH games and while I admit it balances the characters, it adds some odd variance from the usual fantasy tropes as regards acquiring stuff.

cheers, Mark

Mark, I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one that has come to that same conclusion.

UltraRob

Aug 7th, '04, 01:52 PM

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306&highlight=xiawarr

bblackmoor

Aug 9th, '04, 04:27 PM

Incidentally, there's another option, which I have considered but have never actually used (nor seen used). That is to allow magicians access to magic for "free", just like blade-swingers do.

In practice, this would require the character to have the appropriate familiarities and talents, and it would require the GM to put at least as much effort (but probably several times more effort) into enumerating the available spells as the basic game does into enumerating weapons and armor and other equipment.

I haven't seen a GM put forth this much effort, and I have not (yet) been willing to put forth that much effort myself. I tend to think it'd resolve the various balance problems people have brought up in this thread, though.

Killer Shrike

Aug 9th, '04, 04:57 PM

bblackmoor

Aug 9th, '04, 07:02 PM

Cough...

Yes, truly: that's a good start. I'd probably heavily leverage your work if I were to tackle such a project.

Markdoc

Aug 10th, '04, 01:25 AM

>>> Bingo: if you give mages and non-mages the same points, and make them adhere to the same rules, but don't require non-mages to pay for weapons and equipment, the non-mages dominate. Period. The only way the situation you describe could take place is if you gave the mages more points or you imposed a house rule which swung the pendulum in the mages' favor.<<<

Nope, not all. Quite the reverse, in fact. Everybody operated under exactly the same rules, including access to free equipment for all, in all of the games I described.

I think the difference in experiences may lie in GM'ing style, since KS has clearly run FH games and has had different experiences than those I have had. Part of it might be the high starting point level, though I doubt it - one PC in my longest running FH game topped out at just under 500 points and some of the others in the same group were in the 400 point range - all with "pay at full cost" magic.

Looking at the way he designs magic systems, KS has put a lot of effort in balancing the various magic systems. They are very detailed and have specific limitations, and his NPC mage writeups tend to be "mage-only" - meaning that a substantial amount of their points are invested in magic-use. By contrast, I like to take a fairly free hand with my players (within reason), which may explain why in most games (all, actually) we have usually seen mages kitted out in armour, with swords and bows. Their armour tends to be less than those who specialise in HTH combat, because on average mages tended to have a little less STR than fighters, and their CSLs were lower, but as noted by another poster, combining those weapons and armour with Aid spells, Invisibility, Regeneration, etc and they were more than a match for non-magical swordswingers - plus, in general they had other capabilities that no fighter could match.

It's also fair to say that most of the players in those games were Hero system mavens who could work up a character on a sheet of paper with no reference materials, with no trouble at all. And what they (and me too, as a player :D) tended to do was to use magic to leverage their free gear, making it MORE effective - not less.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that in some games, paying full cost for magic might be crippling, but it is it by no means a general rule.

cheers, Mark

Killer Shrike

Aug 10th, '04, 11:30 AM

Yes, if powergamed specifically to be a self-buffer (which just sounds messed up ;) ), a magic user can get out of control.

Personally I clamp down on powergamers and encourage in-flavor in-concept play.

In a less immersive environment where players just take whatever they like, primarily for purposes of min/maxing then _any_ option that allows players to have access to Power whether via "magic", "psionics", or special "abilities" can be abused by players. Of course, that sort of situation tends to form it's own natural balance however -- since if all characters are doing it then it more or less evens out.

Markdoc

Aug 11th, '04, 03:35 AM

Personally I clamp down on powergamers and encourage in-flavor in-concept play.

In a less immersive environment where players just take whatever they like, primarily for purposes of min/maxing then _any_ option that allows players to have access to Power whether via "magic", "psionics", or special "abilities" can be abused by players. Of course, that sort of situation tends to form it's own natural balance however -- since if all characters are doing it then it more or less evens out.

Ah, but a *good* powergamer can generate an in-flavour, in-concept character that still takes shameless advantage of the rules. :D Seriously, some of my best players - and also interestingly, among the best GM's I have played with - have been exactly this type. As players (in game) they tend to remember details and plotlines, connect the dots, make interesting and unexpected decisions and throw up new plotlines by the cartload. As GMs they tend to detail their game worlds, design interesting plots and memorable NPCs - and they generally run well, because they know the rules so well there's no stress involved in the mechanics, so they can focus on story and NPC activity. And as players (out of game) they sweat the details of character creation - all for the same reason: they are *involved* in the game.

I've been lucky, having had three stable gaming groups dominated by this kind of player/GM, for a total of about 12 years of weekly gaming goodness. So I tend to go into detail about the gaming world before player character design starts and lay down guidelines on the kind of things I want to see (and more importantly, not see). In-game flavour is crucial, for me.

And as noted, with competent players, paying full cost for magic does not prevent comptent - even deadly - mages. It's not, I will admit, my favoured system, since it more or less guarantees mages with a very small number of spells (those who try to buy a whole bunch of spells will be dealt with by "ahem" natural selection :)). But the idea that it's not a viable system is directly contradicted by years of experience.

Oh, BTW, KS I haven't forgotten about your mail - I've been playing around with the magic systems, building various characters and so on - I'll get back to you, I've just been slowed down by buying a new computer recently meaning I have been *cough* testing its limits to see how fast it really is :)

cheers, Mark

James Gillen

Aug 11th, '04, 03:38 AM

You definitely end up with fewer spells. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. :) I was definitely annoyed when I saw that mages got a break under most spell systems, but no mention was made of, say, paladin powers getting a points break... I don't see any reason for mages to get a break other than 'they're mages.' That doesn't sound right to me.

Think of the Paladin powers as being "spell-like" (in D&D 3 terms) with few of the inherent Limitations of actual spells.

In practice, charging full price for spells (which I did in my last FH game, loosely adapted from AD&D) made character advancement a bit too painful compared to warrior advancement (and again, the argument was raised, 'why do I have to pay for X Attack and Force Field when the Warrior gets his weapons and armor for no points?'). The result was that being a spellcaster was a very unpopular choice- not at all what I'd intended for a High Fantasy/AD&D type game.

I find the Turakian system to be a very effective compromise.

And, no, it's not *necessarily* a bad thing to have expensive (full-price) spellcasting; this means either fewer spells overall, or much more limited and ritual spells. That in itself affects the flavor of the setting. The first FH game I played in was way, way back before 4th Edition Champions, and the inherent limitations of THAT magic system meant that most of us were Warriors and Rogues. Which IS in keeping with most classic adventure fiction if not the "D&D" standard.

JG

James Gillen

Aug 11th, '04, 03:46 AM

I do see it as a problem. It essentially gives a big discount to a single SFX (Magic Spells), which is unfair.

I really dont like the divide by 3 "Turakian" Magic. It blows every framework out of the water, and there's no way for a non-spellcaster to compete with that, really, and the longer play progresses the more apparant it would become since each 1 xp the MU gets translates into 3 character points worth of magic if they choose to spend it on boosting their power.

The divide by 3 could be made to work in some settings, but it would take a more even handed discounting for non-Spells. However, its incorporation as the defacto official Magic System (being the Magic System for the default Fantasy Setting) is somewhat off putting to me.

When The Valdorian Age comes out we should have a point of comparison.

JG

Killer Shrike

Aug 11th, '04, 08:04 AM

Ah, but a *good* powergamer can generate an in-flavour, in-concept character that still takes shameless advantage of the rules.

SNIP

cheers, Mark

Personally, I just say "NO" to overly abusive concepts generally. My players tend not to test my limits however because I also have the habit of giving them enough rope to hang themselves with if they insist on feeding their inner munchkin.

I make it very clear that the goal isnt to compete with one another for who can have the most powerful character -- the goal is to play the game and have fun.

I have a laundry list of methods for dealing with players that dont quite seem to get that.

Internally I will also adjust to correct for any loopholes that were previously exploited.

In generaly, what I like most about the HERO System is it's robustness. I find that unlike some other games where one good loophole can make a character uber, in the HERO System every character has at least one Achilles Heel.

Killer Shrike

Aug 11th, '04, 08:06 AM

Oh, BTW, KS I haven't forgotten about your mail - I've been playing around with the magic systems, building various characters and so on - I'll get back to you, I've just been slowed down by buying a new computer recently meaning I have been *cough* testing its limits to see how fast it really is :)

cheers, Mark
Excellent. Im leaving this weekend for a European vacation, so Ill be offline for about a month any way -- so no rush :D

Rick

Aug 11th, '04, 10:08 AM

I've found that /2, /3 and /5 work out quite well where magic is supposed to be blatantly powerful. And even then the Fighters (W/their Katana in L5R and there rapier & pistol in steam punk) still wupped ass and were a threat to everyone.

The way damage works in hero, with hit loc and body/stun, my sword never loses effectiveness; so long as the GM watches the resistant defenses. Seriously how many people complain in D&D about the difference betweeen a 10th level fighter and a 10th level wizard/sorceror. In hero though the Fighter character not only stands a chance, he is a legitemit threat to the magic user.

I think all of the options brought up will work very well in the hands of an attentive GM. I like the simple and flexable divide by X option. Others like the power frameworks, some like talents and skills and many like to charge full point value. Cool they all work and are all legitimatly "hero". WHat a wonderful system.