Magic system search

[DarqPrince]

Hello everyone,

I am looking for a magic system with guidelines towards ranks and titles of mastery in magic. I know there has been mention in Fantasy Hero, but I was wondering if perhaps somebody already knew of one out there. I am looking for something much more defined than the d20 system, and perhaps something similiar to Mage the Ascencion when it came to titles of a mage depending on spheredots and such. If I am still confusing others as to my meaning I would be more than happy to clarify things via Q&A on this thread.

[Nolgroth]

Well I don't know of any specific magic systems, but the thread linked below has a heck of a lot of conversions. Maybe one of those will help you. This one here is from Question Man. Lord Liadin has a similar thread and they both have tons of information. I'm just too lazy to go search for Lord Liadin's thread link. Maybe he will pop in and drop the link for me.

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24968%3Cbr%20/%3E

[Killer Shrike]

Hello everyone,

I am looking for a magic system with guidelines towards ranks and titles of mastery in magic. I know there has been mention in Fantasy Hero, but I was wondering if perhaps somebody already knew of one out there. I am looking for something much more defined than the d20 system, and perhaps something similiar to Mage the Ascencion when it came to titles of a mage depending on spheredots and such. If I am still confusing others as to my meaning I would be more than happy to clarify things via Q&A on this thread.

Page 266 of Fantasy HERO for HERO System 5th Edition describes "Lex Magisterium", which is a structured and ranked Magic System.

[Lord Liaden]

Well I don't know of any specific magic systems, but the thread linked below has a heck of a lot of conversions. Maybe one of those will help you. This one here is from Question Man. Lord Liadin has a similar thread and they both have tons of information. I'm just too lazy to go search for Lord Liadin's thread link. Maybe he will pop in and drop the link for me.


Thanks for the plug, nolgroth. Actually, if you look at the "Similar Threads" box at the bottom of this page, mine is the first link on the list. ;)

Hmm... I'm not aware of an original HERO magic system which uses ranks and titles, other than the Lex Magisterium that Killer Shrike pointed you to. OTOH there are conversions of magic systems from other games that might be suitable, or at least give you ideas.

DarqPrince, since you mentioned Mage: The Ascension, here is a pretty detailed conversion of Mage magic to HERO: http://surbrook.devermore.net/whitewolf/WODmage.html

I know that you wanted more definition than d20, but if you did decide to just adopt the titles from D&D character classes, here are Killer Shrike's guidelines for converting D&D levels to HERO character points: http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Conversion3e/Class3e/DD3e.htm

Speaking more generally to HERO magic systems, there are a ton of fan-created ones freely available on the Web. My RPG conversion thread lists a bunch derived from other games, and I could point you to a number of original examples, including design considerations and guidelines, if you'd be interested.

[Killer Shrike]

For that matter you could just take a magic system that has some mechanic that can be delineated sufficiently for you to hang your own titles on.

For example the Warhammer 2e Magic System I just finished has distinct Ratings, generally 1 thru 5, which you could easily assing whatever titles you like to; you could call Rating 1 "Apprentice", Rating 2 "Journeyman", Rating 3 "Master", Rating 4 "Archmaster", and Rating 5 "Grand Master" for example:

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/ConversionWH2e/conversionWH2eMagic.shtml


Similarly, my Wizardry and Arcanis Magnicus systems have the concept of every 15 Pool in their Magic VPP representing access to a higher "Spell Level". It's not too much of a stretch to attach titles to those with access to specific Levels of Spells; 15 Pool = Apprentice, 30 Pool = "Journeyman", 60 Pool = "Master", 120 Pool = "Archmage", 150 Pool = "Demiurge" for example.

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/GreyHEROContent/PackageDeals/wizardPackages.shtml
http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/GreyHEROContent/PackageDeals/arcanisMagnicusPackages.shtml

My Sorcery system is similar, but it is built on layered Multipowers. You could assign titles to various increments of MP in the same fashion.

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/GreyHEROContent/PackageDeals/sorcererPackages.shtml


My Metier system is also MP based, though in a more traditional fashion than Sorcery. Nevertheless you could attach your titles to increments of the MP Reserve. Increments of 30 would probably work.

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/GreyHEROContent/PackageDeals/metierPackages.shtml

It would be a little harder to do this with Skill based Magic Systems like my Magecraft and Spellweaving systems, but it is still doable. You could define benchmarks to measure ranking and apply the titles to the benchmarks; any character that meets that benchmark qualifies for the title. For example you could set benchmarks based on total cost spent on Spell Skills, on a quotient guaging the average rating of all of a character's Spell Skills rated against an assumed number of total Spell Skills, or some other means.

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/GreyHEROContent/PackageDeals/magicianPackages.shtml
http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/GreyHEROContent/PackageDeals/spellweaverPackages.shtml

Similarly you could apply the exact same method to systems like the Turakian Age divisor based system, where characters buy each Spell as a seperate Power, but at a fraction of the true Real Cost.


What titles are you wanting to assign, exactly, and why is it such a key consideration for you? It's just a labeling process, really. It should be easy to label just about any Magic System in just about any fashion you like.

[Glupii]

Has anyone ever tried the one recommended in the FH book about ranking spells by (ActivePoints/10) + (RealPoints/10) to get the spell level? I am working on a new magic system as I convert over to Hero from d20 that maintains some of the feel of the d20 system. I am using this in a 4 step (Apprentice, Journeymen, Adept, and Master levels) process and the point breakdown I am using (rough atm and could change) are 1-4=Apprentice, 5-8 Journeyman, 9-14 Adept, and 15+ for Master.

One problem I am already encountering is defensive spells. In order to make them fall in the level I was shooting for, they are going to be too powerful for the game.

[Killer Shrike]

Has anyone ever tried the one recommended in the FH book about ranking spells by (ActivePoints/10) + (RealPoints/10) to get the spell level? I am working on a new magic system as I convert over to Hero from d20 that maintains some of the feel of the d20 system. I am using this in a 4 step (Apprentice, Journeymen, Adept, and Master levels) process and the point breakdown I am using (rough atm and could change) are 1-4=Apprentice, 5-8 Journeyman, 9-14 Adept, and 15+ for Master.

One problem I am already encountering is defensive spells. In order to make them fall in the level I was shooting for, they are going to be too powerful for the game.
I toyed with it when I was doing my D&D conversion to the HERO System

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Conversion3e/conversion3e.shtml

but I found mixing the Real Cost into the equation lead to very inconsistent results.

My solution was to model the Spell Level idea as Spell Level = (Active Points/15). Makes it much more consistently based on raw power or complexity (depending on whether the Spell is a single Power or a Compound Power), IMO.

[Glupii]

Have you played the system KS? How did it work out for you? I am curious and anxious to avoid any issues that will make it more difficult than it already will be to convince all my players to convert with me. So I need to get this right the first time.

[Killer Shrike]

Have you played the system KS? How did it work out for you? I am curious and anxious to avoid any issues that will make it more difficult than it already will be to convince all my players to convert with me. So I need to get this right the first time.
Played which system?

[Old Man]

Has anyone ever tried the one recommended in the FH book about ranking spells by (ActivePoints/10) + (RealPoints/10) to get the spell level? I am working on a new magic system as I convert over to Hero from d20 that maintains some of the feel of the d20 system. I am using this in a 4 step (Apprentice, Journeymen, Adept, and Master levels) process and the point breakdown I am using (rough atm and could change) are 1-4=Apprentice, 5-8 Journeyman, 9-14 Adept, and 15+ for Master.

You don't really need to bother with the active point totals. I find that the real cost is a pretty close approximation of spell level--a 2pt. real cost spell is simply not going to be that spectacular, while an (outrageously expensive) 9pt. real cost spell is likely to be very powerful.

Another alternative, if you still want to keep active points weighted, would be to go (ActivePoints/10) + RealPoints. That would make a 30-active-point 2d6 RKA with -4 in disads a 'level' 10 spell, so you'd probably have to reset your definitions a bit.

Note that I'm ignoring any power frameworks or the 5ed free BS -2 limitation.



One problem I am already encountering is defensive spells. In order to make them fall in the level I was shooting for, they are going to be too powerful for the game.

That is a problem endemic to FH, and Hero in general, not your level system. Certain Hero powers are radically undercosted for fantasy, including Flight and Force Field.

[Killer Shrike]

I find that Real Cost is a poor indicator of actual power level/ Spell Level because it is relatively easy in FH to have a high AP Power with a low RC due to heavy limitations.

Two different Spells might have widely different AP's but similar RC's; one is still the more powerful of the two.

[John Desmarais]

I find that Real Cost is a poor indicator of actual power level/ Spell Level because it is relatively easy in FH to have a high AP Power with a low RC due to heavy limitations.

Two different Spells might have widely different AP's but similar RC's; one is still the more powerful of the two.

Unless you have a very standardized set of strictly imposed limitations (of course, at that point, it means exactly the same thing as Active cost...).

[Old Man]

I find that Real Cost is a poor indicator of actual power level/ Spell Level because it is relatively easy in FH to have a high AP Power with a low RC due to heavy limitations.

Heavy limitations must reduce the actual utility of the spell or they are not limitations, right?


Two different Spells might have widely different AP's but similar RC's; one is still the more powerful of the two.

Powerful in an effect-on-the-campaign sense, certainly, but not necessarily from an actual utility standpoint. Surely the power level of the caster must include the ease with which he can cast spells. Which is more 'powerful', a 2d6 RKA with just RSR, or a 4d6 RKA that takes five days to cast?

[Killer Shrike]

Heavy limitations must reduce the actual utility of the spell or they are not limitations, right?



Powerful in an effect-on-the-campaign sense, certainly, but not necessarily from an actual utility standpoint. Surely the power level of the caster must include the ease with which he can cast spells. Which is more 'powerful', a 2d6 RKA with just RSR, or a 4d6 RKA that takes five days to cast?
Thats a strawman argument. How about the difference between:

2d6 RKA (30 AP); Incantation, Gestures, 1/2 DCV Concentration (-1/2); Real Cost: 20

and

4d6 RKA (60 AP); Incantation, Gestures, 0 DCV Concentration, Full Phase, OIF (-2) ; Real Cost: 20

Which is more powerful? The 4d6 version. The 2d6 version is more flexible, but it's quantifiably weaker in both an abstract and contextual measurement.

*Abstractly it's literally half as powerful.

*Contextually it is less than half as effective due to it's inability to crest defenses or accomplish one shot one kill trades; it's average damage is 7 BODY, which will not go thru Plate mail or kill an unarmored unenhanced opponent; the 4d6 version averages 14 BODY which will go thru Plate or put an unarmored unenhanced opponent into negative BODY.


Considering this significant difference in their power level, should they be the same "Spell Level"?

I guess that depends on what one uses Spell Level to measure. For me, Spell Level is a measure of magnitude or complexity. Simple spells with high AP's and complex Spells combining several smaller effects should be rated higher than equivalent Spells with lower AP in my opinion.

Im not as concerned by a spellcaster doing the equivalent of shooting arrows (smaller Spells) as I am by a spellcaster pitching the equivalent of a catapult bolder or ballista bolt or worse (larger Spells). High magnitude Spells are more dangerous than low magnitude Spells.

Think of it this way, do you base high level decision making on how many AK-47's the enemy has, or how many nukes? They certainly dont get anywhere near equal weight.


As an aside, all of the Vancian Style Magic Systems I provide on my site (Wizardry, Sorcery, Arcanis Magnicus, Elementalism, Sortilege) adhere to the concept of Spell Level determined in steps of 15 AP. Thus the two Spells noted above would be a 1st Level and a 4th Level Spell respectively based on their Active Points. Most of the other Magic Systems Ive made don't care about the concept of "Spell Level" at all, having other means to keep them internally balanced.

[Old Man]

Thats a strawman argument.

No it isn't, any more than your counterexample is a strawman. I'm merely saying that the 'power level' of a spell should be more than just a function of active points cost--you have to take into account the contortions the spellcaster has to go through in order to achieve the effect. An apprentice may need two hours of preparation and concentration to cast Continual Light while his master can achieve the exact same effect by raising his eyebrow. The AP cost is identical, but are the spell 'levels' the same? Are the caster 'levels' the same?

[Killer Shrike]

No it isn't, any more than your counterexample is a strawman.
I beg to differ -- the idea that the only way a more powerful Spell can be limited heavily is to make it effectively useless ignores the many other ways that a powerful Spell can be limited and yet still be useful. A combat spell that takes days to cast is clearly not useful, so using that scenario as a cornerstone of your argument is specious.




I'm merely saying that the 'power level' of a spell should be more than just a function of active points cost--you have to take into account the contortions the spellcaster has to go through in order to achieve the effect. An apprentice may need two hours of preparation and concentration to cast Continual Light while his master can achieve the exact same effect by raising his eyebrow.

If you are basing your idea of "Spell Level" on ease of casting, then sure. That's not what I care about in my games, so its not important to me. You seem to be more concerned with how HARD it is to cast a Spell -- I'm more concerned with what a Spell does once it is cast.



The AP cost is identical, but are the spell 'levels' the same? Are the caster 'levels' the same?
A) Why are you coupling CASTER level and SPELL level? They are two seperate concepts.

B) Are the Spell Levels the same? They have the same effect -- they have an equal level of magnitude. Since my Vancian Systems use Spell Level to indicate magnitude and complexity, then yes they are the same "Spell Level" in those systems.

Some of my other Magic Systems are Real Cost oriented, like Spellweaving and Magecraft. They are more concerned with difficulty than magnitude. They also lack the concept of "Spell Level" because its a meaningless distinction to those systems.

[zornwil]

I just ran across this looking for posts by Pie out of curiousity...

I would well agree that Real Points are inconsistent, and while there's a good reason to use Active Points over that, I don't think they're terribly consistent, either. The 2d6 RKA versus 4d6 RKA example by KS was actually pretty good...which one I'd want would be questionable, really, as being at 0 DCV and a full phase for the 4d6 RKA does really suck, particularly if your character is lighter on defense.

I don't know that I'd go (AP/10) + (RP/10) or such, but I think both are good indicators in their own right of relative power levels, although both also require, for that, reasonable use of Advs and Lims.

[Killer Shrike]

I just ran across this looking for posts by Pie out of curiousity...

That's odd -- this is the only thread he has posted on to date.


I would well agree that Real Points are inconsistent, and while there's a good reason to use Active Points over that, I don't think they're terribly consistent, either. The 2d6 RKA versus 4d6 RKA example by KS was actually pretty good...which one I'd want would be questionable, really, as being at 0 DCV and a full phase for the 4d6 RKA does really suck, particularly if your character is lighter on defense.

Personally I'd want both and use them situationally.

[zornwil]

That's odd -- this is the only thread he has posted on to date.

Personally I'd want both and use them situationally.
True, that would be ideal (I mean, given a lack of other options!).

PS - Pie posted in a long-dormant thread, so piqued my curiousity as to what else he/she/it was up to.

[Killer Shrike]

True, that would be ideal (I mean, given a lack of other options!).

PS - Pie posted in a long-dormant thread, so piqued my curiousity as to what else he/she/it was up to.
I suspect its a second login for another poster. Not 100% sure though.

[Old Man]

I beg to differ -- the idea that the only way a more powerful Spell can be limited heavily is to make it effectively useless ignores the many other ways that a powerful Spell can be limited and yet still be useful. A combat spell that takes days to cast is clearly not useful, so using that scenario as a cornerstone of your argument is specious.

Thank you for agreeing with me. Yes, a combat spell that takes days to cast is not useful, because that's what limitations do--limit the usefulness of the spell. It doesn't really matter what the special effects are--a 30 AP spell with -10 in limitations is clearly not as powerful as a 30 AP spell with -1/2.


If you are basing your idea of "Spell Level" on ease of casting, then sure. That's not what I care about in my games, so its not important to me. You seem to be more concerned with how HARD it is to cast a Spell -- I'm more concerned with what a Spell does once it is cast.

Then we can simply agree to disagree here. I am surprised that you aren't concerned with any of the practical aspects of the spellcasting in your measurements--that in your mind, Kill With A Word is the same 'level' as Kill With A Book, Staff, Candle-lit Pentagram, And Five Hours Of Chanting.


A) Why are you coupling CASTER level and SPELL level? They are two seperate concepts.

I'm not coupling them, I'm pointing out that neither type of level is adequately measured by AP alone.


B) Are the Spell Levels the same? They have the same effect -- they have an equal level of magnitude. Since my Vancian Systems use Spell Level to indicate magnitude and complexity, then yes they are the same "Spell Level" in those systems.

So the limitations of the spell don't factor into the complexity at all? Really? Okay.


Some of my other Magic Systems are Real Cost oriented, like Spellweaving and Magecraft. They are more concerned with difficulty than magnitude. They also lack the concept of "Spell Level" because its a meaningless distinction to those systems.

I don't see why you can't impose an arbitrary level system based on real cost, but you can impose one based on active points.

[mudpyr8]

I'll chime in and put my .02 in the Real Points camp. If the utility of a power is reduced then it's overall applicability is reduced. So a 2d6 RKA and a 2d6 RKA with no range are different levels of power. However, this assumes that a baseline of limitations applies, so for example all spells have -2 lims (e.g. inc, gestures, 1/2 dcv, spell, rsr, minor side effects). With just these lims there fundamentally is no difference between using Active Points or Real Points as a benchmark. However, using the example above, if I make one spell no range and leave the other alone then you get a power difference.

It's all in how you perceive power and its ranking. Different approaches, neither is right or wrong, and each results in a different feel to the magic system. Like all things it is the GMs/Magic System Designer's responsibility to ensure the system maintains the appropriate balance and feel for the campaign.

Personally, basing things off Active Points has bugged me since the 80s. For me, clearly Ritual Magic involving magic circles and long casting times should result in greater power than spells cast without those limitations for a mage of the same "rank". Otherwise, the only "reward" for having those limitations is that one spell is cheaper to know than the other which has a different feel than one spell resulting in greater effect than the other.

[Glupii]

Wow! What have I ignighted here?

Actually everyone is making very valid points and I appreciate all the input. Many of these thoughts have never occured to me. I know that I have never been a fan of basing things strictly from the AP's and agree that limitations converting them to RP's have to be weighed in the mix to get a true idea of how powerful the spell is.

That being said however, in a perfect world that would exist. But I can put enough limitations on a very powerful spell that would still allow thespell to be more powerful than its RP's would indicate. Anyone who is or has had a good rules lawyer in their game knows what I am talking about.

That is why I originally thought to somehow take a sampling of both and tie them together to get a spell power value. Folks obviously do nto like the (AP/10)+(RP/10) so let me ask this next question of all you great thinkers out there. If I wanted to tie them together somehow, what ideas for modifying this eqation do you think would be the most fair?

[mudpyr8]

They are already tied together by virtue of how their RP are calculated. If the penalty is typically AP/10 then a spell with no limitations of RP/10 would be the same. However, let's assume that -2 lims is the baseline for your spells. That means that AP/10 and RP/3.33 is about equal. So, then you would have the following for the standard RSR levels:

AP/5 = RP/1.5
AP/10 = RP/3
AP/20 = RP/7

If you wanted to tweak it a little, say going with 1.5 lims as mandatory and fudging the numbers for clarity

AP/5 = RP/3
AP/10 = RP/6
AP/20 = RP/12

Fundamentally you account for the AP of the spell by virtue of determining your base limitations for the game and then reward the limited utility of spells that go beyond the standard 1.5. Then use whatever you establish as the AP/10 equivalent for your power levels.

You could juice that up by making certain ads only available when certain limitations are in play (e.g. transdimensional, maga-scale, things like that only when ritual magic is employed with unique consumable foci).

[UltraRob]

Personally, basing things off Active Points has bugged me since the 80s. For me, clearly Ritual Magic involving magic circles and long casting times should result in greater power than spells cast without those limitations for a mage of the same "rank". Otherwise, the only "reward" for having those limitations is that one spell is cheaper to know than the other which has a different feel than one spell resulting in greater effect than the other.

You could simulate this by using the AID power to boost known spells, requiring a ritual (which might take extra time) for each casting of AID until the spell reaches maximum efficiency. (Which is maybe double or so the normal campaign limits.) Thus a mage with a normally 60 active point cap could cast a 120 point spell if they knew the proper type of ritual, but are still a 60pt mage.

Rob

[Killer Shrike]

Wow! What have I ignighted here?

Actually everyone is making very valid points and I appreciate all the input. Many of these thoughts have never occured to me. I know that I have never been a fan of basing things strictly from the AP's and agree that limitations converting them to RP's have to be weighed in the mix to get a true idea of how powerful the spell is.

That being said however, in a perfect world that would exist. But I can put enough limitations on a very powerful spell that would still allow thespell to be more powerful than its RP's would indicate. Anyone who is or has had a good rules lawyer in their game knows what I am talking about.

That is why I originally thought to somehow take a sampling of both and tie them together to get a spell power value. Folks obviously do nto like the (AP/10)+(RP/10) so let me ask this next question of all you great thinkers out there. If I wanted to tie them together somehow, what ideas for modifying this eqation do you think would be the most fair?


It depends on what kind of a Magic System you are using and what you are trying to measure.

You would be better off first defining the general mechanics of how your Magic System works, and then start applying different methods of determining a "Spell Level" until you find one that seems right for you.

[Killer Shrike]

Thank you for agreeing with me. Yes, a combat spell that takes days to cast is not useful, because that's what limitations do--limit the usefulness of the spell.
In case it escaped your attention, Im not agreeing with you. Sorry if you were confused.

There is a difference between Limiting a Spell and designing a Spell in such a way as to make it effectively useless, which is to say so impractical that it will never be used; which is an idea that seems to be lost on you.





It doesn't really matter what the special effects are--a 30 AP spell with -10 in limitations is clearly not as powerful as a 30 AP spell with -1/2.
Who is talking about SFX? The example I gave was two Powers with different builds, but their SFX very well could be the same.

And who is talking about -10? The example I gave compared a -1/2 to a -2.

You seem to like to think in extremes, which is a very illogical means of analysis. The majority of cases tend to fall closer to the middle.




Then we can simply agree to disagree here. I am surprised that you aren't concerned with any of the practical aspects of the spellcasting in your measurements--that in your mind, Kill With A Word is the same 'level' as Kill With A Book, Staff, Candle-lit Pentagram, And Five Hours Of Chanting.

Some of the Magic Systems I've designes are concerned about the means of casting, others aren't. It depends on the intended feel. However, the Systems Ive designed that care about it don't care about "Spell Level" -- it's a meaningless concept in that sort of a model.




I'm not coupling them, I'm pointing out that neither type of level is adequately measured by AP alone.
Not adequately for you, perhaps.




So the limitations of the spell don't factor into the complexity at all? Really? Okay.
Not in the way I mean complexity. When I say complex Spells, Im talking about Spells made up of several base Powers as part of a Compound Power.

As stated multiple times, I'm concerned about effects; you can apply as many Limitations as you want to an xd6 vanilla RKA, and it's still a simple effect.

A complex Spell in my book is one that is constructed of two or more Power Constructs in an attempt to model some more complicated behavior.





I don't see why you can't impose an arbitrary level system based on real cost, but you can impose one based on active points.
You can impose whatever you want; as can I. It is your game.

I was just pointing out that basing your measurement solely on RC means that two Spells of very different magnitudes can be the same Spell Level, which is not intuitive to most people. To determine which of two Spells is more powerful, you end up having to compare their Active Points anyway. Seems kind of silly to me to not factor that in at the beginning; but again if what you are measuring is difficulty to use and not how good it is once used then so be it.

[mudpyr8]

You could simulate this by using the AID power to boost known spells, requiring a ritual (which might take extra time) for each casting of AID until the spell reaches maximum efficiency. (Which is maybe double or so the normal campaign limits.) Thus a mage with a normally 60 active point cap could cast a 120 point spell if they knew the proper type of ritual, but are still a 60pt mage.

Rob

Great point, Rob, That is a very nice, in-game way to handle that. I still have issues with allowing things like mega-scale without some ritual lim and such, but that can be handled by adding a lim: linked Ritual Magic -1/4 (assuming the spell will be greater in power than the ritual spell).

[Glupii]

OK, I am rapidly feeling that the best way for me to handle this is to just judge each spell on its own and arbitrarilly grant it a level. Some spells which I can write at different levels will be easier than others. But it seems the only fair way.

What I was looking at using levels for is assigning what spells a character could cast depending on the in game degree to which he/she has advanced in the "arts". I might even scratch that as it is rapidly getting to complex.

[Killer Shrike]

OK, I am rapidly feeling that the best way for me to handle this is to just judge each spell on its own and arbitrarilly grant it a level. Some spells which I can write at different levels will be easier than others. But it seems the only fair way.

What I was looking at using levels for is assigning what spells a character could cast depending on the in game degree to which he/she has advanced in the "arts". I might even scratch that as it is rapidly getting to complex.

There are no "wrong" answers to this, but there are "better" answers. Youre going to be better off basing it on something concrete -- otherwise it gets random fast.

As you can see from this thread, there's no consensus on how to do it, so just pick some variation of AP and / or RC or some other consistent method that makes sense to you and go with it.


Also, you never answered my question earlier....you asked me something about playing a system, and I asked you to clarify what system you meant.

[AnotherSkip]

Played which system?

Hey KS I think G means the system listed in the book as a ranked system (pg 2?? ) thats just my macro guess, from reading the thread backwards from your question.

[Glupii]

Oops, sorry bout that, didn't mean to ignore ya KS. The system I am developing is a mutant of several already published systems in the FH rulebook along with my own attempts to make it a little more like the D&D model so that folks who only know D&D (or d20) will be able to pick it up easier. I am putting the final touches on the second draft of it now and will email it to you (hopefully today) for perusal. It is pretty long so unless others want to see it, I won't bore the readers here with posting it.

Basically it uses different systems for different casters. It uses the 5 point talent to buy a 25 point VPP in a school of magic (I forget what that was called in the FH book and don't have it here with me at work) for Wizards, and a more traditional unstructured system for Sorcerers where by their spells cost less and are unlimited in their active points and design but that they have limitations in how many spells they can have. Divine casters are similar to Wizards but have a different spell list using spheres rather than colleges. Druids, Bards, Runecasters, and Witches are all closer to the Sorcerer model with slight differences and different spell lists.

The premise of the world as it stands right now (subject to change before I actually try to run it) is that The known world is under the thumb (talon?) of the Dragon Lords who keep a close eye on magic weilding humans and halflings. The only sanctioned spell casters are the Wizards who study at the Academy and are members of the official guild. But there are hedgewitches and sorcerers who are sort of underground. And the divine casters are all underground except for a few darker churches (again, sanctioned by the DL's). Druids are largely left alone because they are not understood by the DL's but they have never directly threatened them either. Bards are used seen as a giant spy network of such usefulness that they put up with them being largly on their own and out of direct control of the DL's in exchange for their communication and spying information.

I am trying to make this system as close to the d20 system as I can without losing the benefits of the Hero system that are promtping me to convert.

I hope this answers some of the questions I missed answering earlier?

[mudpyr8]

I think what you are trying to do is something many of us have done before, and I came to the conclusion that wasn't the best way to approach it. I recognize the value of having a similar structure to d20 but I think that won't serve you well in the long run. More than structure I think the main thing people enjoy is diversity or number of spells a single caster can know but having a more limited pool that they can cast a single time.

I would focus on making a system that allows a mage to have a decent spell list of varied spells and then define just how many of those he can have at the ready at any given time (and what it takes to change the readied list). Then just use standard Hero constructions and END as normal to keep things simple.

If you deviate too far from the core rules your players that do read the rules will find themselves confused as to why what you are doing isn't like it is in the book.

Just my advice.

[Glupii]

Mud,

I agree with you. And the wizard system I have in place does that. They have VPP's for each college of magic they know and they can switch the spells in each of them with other spells from that college in their spellbook. There is no limit to the number of spells they can know, just to how many they have available at any given time. The size of their VPP's is up to them. They can specialize in a specific college and build up that VPP to accomodate more powerful spells from that college. Or they can spread out and get the less powerful spells from many different colleges. Of course they still have to aquire the spells for their spellbook in some fashion (bought, found, treasure, traded, researched, etc.).

Sorceres on the other hand have a limited number of spells they can know but those spells can be much more powerful.

Does this fit with the advice you were giving me? I want to make sure to give hard thought to everyone's wisdom who is gracious enough to share it with me here. So if I misunderstood what you were saying, please clarify. Thanks again!

[mudpyr8]

Pretty much. One way to handle known spells would be to use a Spell Familiarity. 1 point lets them know a spell and they can put it into their pool. Or you could charge points for their spellbook, like 1 point per 3 or 5 spells.

Are you allowing sorcerers to change their spells over time as they can in d20?

[Glupii]

As it stands right now, Any spell they know can be altered only if it increases the power. (ie more dice of effect, applying AP, or something of the sort). If they alter it in any other way (Add AoE, etc) they have to purchase the spell all over.

Also worth note, Socrerer spells are all RP/5 for actual cost.

[mudpyr8]

Sounds good. I just know that every level in d20 a socerer can drop his current spell selection and select new ones. You might think about allowing a similar change but it takes a PRE roll at -1 per 10 active points in the new spell with a base time of 1 hour. Each step down the time chart adds +1 to the roll. On a failure the bonus resets and they have to start over again. Sounds good.

[Killer Shrike]

Sounds good. I just know that every level in d20 a socerer can drop his current spell selection and select new ones.

? Is that new to 3.5? That wasn't the case in 3.0.

[prestidigitator]

? Is that new to 3.5? That wasn't the case in 3.0.
I don't think it's true at all, unless someone has adopted it as a house rule. However, I believe there is a spell that basically allows you to completely remake your character (though I think there are some restrictions--such as requiring you to ultimately have the same class levels in the end--even if you do choose a different order for having, "obtained," them).

[mudpyr8]

3.5: PHB 54, at 4th level and every even-numbered level they may drop one known spell and learn a new one.

I find it odd to discuss d20 rules on this board. I suddenly feel dirty....

[Killer Shrike]

3.5: PHB 54, at 4th level and every even-numbered level they may drop one known spell and learn a new one.

I find it odd to discuss d20 rules on this board. I suddenly feel dirty....
Oh, that's a little different than completely redoing their spell list ;)

Makes sense -- a problem for Sorcerers in 3e was that higher level Spells could render lower level Spells redundant.

[mudpyr8]

Right, that's why they did it. Yeah, it should be something they can do every now and then, especially if its just adding/removing limitations. A wizard, as stupid, er glupii (you do know that glupi in Russian means stupid, right?) has presented would simply add another spell to his spell book, but have a limited number to cast from in his pool. A sorcerer otoh would be able to alter a known spell over time (e.g. burning hands into flame bolt, into fireball) if he so chose, but obviously could change his spells at a drop of the hat. I used 1 hour as the base time but really it's something that should be done during adventures and only 1 spell at a time or so.

[Glupii]

Actually, my Russian wife tells me it means "Silly" more than stupid. She said Stupid in the mean way would be more like the word "Durock" But yes, I knew Glupii had a Russian meaning. It was why I came up with it. I had a character concept (originally for Evercrack) for a Goon natured but extreamly simple Troll and she helped me with the name. It stuck. It is even on my License plate. LOL

As for the differences I am trying to achive between wizards and sorcerers is that Wizards can know any number of spells but are limited in their power and the number of spells they can have access to at any given time. While a Sorcerer has fewer spells but those spells can be more powerful and can cast them pretty much at will. I am trying to simulate the spellcaster that discovers his magical ability by trial and error, force of will, and with no specific understanding of how it actually works. Since the sorcerer does not understand the mechanics of the spell, he can not change any integral parts of it. However he CAN learn how to focus harder, push himself, control more power channeling it in the same way. Thus he can increase the POWER of the spell (Extra dice, maybe making it AP, longer range if it already had range, etc.) but not the effect (changing the AoE, NND, etc).

Does that make sense or am I rambling?

[mudpyr8]

Makes total sense, although it is different than d20. I don't care one way or another, just that you had stated you wanted to make it as much like d20 without giving up Hero-ness. I'd hate for some d20 fan-boy to sit down and start giving you a hard time about him changing his Sorcerer's spells, but as long as the system is clear up front I don't think it'll be a problem.