Balancing Magic Use

[Tywyll]

Hey,

Was wondering how people balanced magic use in more High Fantasy style settings.

I'm running a game currently and I've set up casters to get spells at RC divided by 5. What can I say, I like spell casters to be flexible. Also, they cast spells from an End Reserve, typically with a fairly large REC, but it only recovers once every 6 hours (so a fully drained caster could regenerate all his 'mana' in one day, and can't spend too much in a fight or risk being 'empty' when he needs it).

I've tried to balance defensive spells so that they either have negatives (things like Earth Skins though they last long have actual weight and cost a x2-x3, and FF tend to be high protection but cost END either every phase or every turn).

I'm just trying to stare into my Crystal Ball and see how non-casters will develop alongside casters and whether it will end up that casters completely overshadow things or not.

Anyone else find this a concern in a long term game?

[Curufea]

I have a number of organisations controlling magic use to keep it balanced.
The biggest one is The Church which is highly regimented and polices all use of magic.
Then you have the Alchemist Guild which gets license from The Church
Finally there are the various magic secret societies that have their own rules and try not to be noticed by The Church.

I also regulate magic with weather. Nearly all spells operate from tapping ley lines - and those lines are subject to various magical weather effects. The game mechanic is - all spells must cost endurance. The character doesn't pay the endurance cost - it comes from the ley lines. If they can't tap a ley line for some reason, and they are skilled enough, they could use personal endurance, but it costs at least double.

[Killer Shrike]

Magic System Control Factors (http://www.killershrike.com/fantasyhero/HighFantasyHero/shrikeMagicDesign_ControlFactors.shtml)

[Thia Halmades]

That depends.

In d20, you have casters who essentially unlimited in what they can do, however, every other character type must have equipment to balance them out and keep them competitive. This is what I call a 'wealth management system.' You WILL have a problem long term, so says the d20 model, and that's just the way that's going to go.

Among the things I would do is borrow heavily from d20; in that system, the wizards don't "pay for" spells because they can a) only learn spells up to their level, and b) learning a spell requires a skill roll. You can adopt this in any number of ways.

My current magic system design is ... fairly complicated. Simply put, I lifted d20 directly, then fixed all the broken crap. F'rinstance.

Let's say you're going to join my campaign and you want to play a caster. I give you the list of the Major, Minor and Lesser Arcana. You are free to pick & choose as you see fit. You can opt out of certain Arcana by taking a Physical Limitation, "Cannot Cast Necromancy Spells" and that would be worth 20, 15 or 10 points depending on the Arcana class itself (Major, Minor, Lesser). With me so far? Bully. Now then.

You start to dev your character and you decide you're going to really focus on being a Conjurer. Again, bully. That's no sweat, you start sinking skill points in the Major Arcana of Conjuration. Then you purchase your IVPP (InVariable Power Pool). It's a strictly limited framework which allows you to add spells at no cost, but carries heavy limitations, many of which I borrowed from Killer Shrike initially before I'd really wrapped my skull around what I was doing. The IVPP keeps you from ever spending XP to learn new spells - you just have to make a skill roll when you find the appropriate scroll, assuming you have the appropriate school. Because that part of d20 made sense, although it's rarely enforced.

All spells consume a Charge (from your IVPP - if you have a 30 point VPP, you can cast up to your Real Cost x2 per day - so 60 Real Points total). All spells must be prepped in advance. Casting a spell requires a Skill Roll from the appropriate Arcana, using the standard 1:10 skill roll rules, then modified for conditions (taking fire, rocking ship, on horseback, etc.)

This system pretty keeps mages in check; only the absurdly powerful are going to be truly talented in more than two or three Arcana at any time. The skill rolls keep fizzle an option, and the IVPP keeps them from running amok (and it only recharges after a full night's rest).

That's the core system I'm working with now. Does that help at all?

[Blue Jogger]

Hey,
Was wondering how people balanced magic use in more High Fantasy style settings.


I balance it with the fact that my magic system is free but usually has a pretty big hidden cost (Skill Roll and Side Effects!). So, to combat that, most people either spend points in learning how to do magic safely (i.e. mage), or they learn lesser magic which isn't so dangerous, but costs 1-for-1.

[LordGhee]

what balance, Gandalf could fight a balrog.

Generally we let the players build the magic they want, in the three 150 pt games none of the mu overly powered the game (everything form a few powers to vpps)

Lord Ghee

[Killer Shrike]

Hey,

Was wondering how people balanced magic use in more High Fantasy style settings.

I'm running a game currently and I've set up casters to get spells at RC divided by 5. What can I say, I like spell casters to be flexible. Also, they cast spells from an End Reserve, typically with a fairly large REC, but it only recovers once every 6 hours (so a fully drained caster could regenerate all his 'mana' in one day, and can't spend too much in a fight or risk being 'empty' when he needs it).

I've tried to balance defensive spells so that they either have negatives (things like Earth Skins though they last long have actual weight and cost a x2-x3, and FF tend to be high protection but cost END either every phase or every turn).

I'm just trying to stare into my Crystal Ball and see how non-casters will develop alongside casters and whether it will end up that casters completely overshadow things or not.

Anyone else find this a concern in a long term game?
Yes and No.

If you don't allow the equivalent of exceptional "heroic" abilities or "super skills" then yeah, characters that have no unusual abilities are not going to be very competitive to characters that are built around having them.

Also, if you don't have much in the way of magic items usable by non magic users, similar results. Combine a lack of both, and sure magic users will dominate.

But then that wouldnt really bea HIGH Fantasy, now would it?


From my (vast) experience in the realm of High Fantasy, the main challenge powerful non magic users have as a whole is dealing with typical magic user evasions, such as Invisibility and Flight, particularly when several are used in conjunction. Other than that, they compete by being uber competant at whatever it is that they do.

For some sample characters, check out the Ptolus conversion Im currently working on PtolusHERO (http://www.killershrike.com/PtolusHERO/PtolusHERO.shtml) or some of my old PC's: Ollix (http://www.killershrike.com/misccharacters/fantasy/Ollix%20Androwsen.HTML) and Jaram Glaive (http://www.killershrike.com/misccharacters/fantasy/Jaram%20Glaive.HTML) or some of the characters from my San'Dora campaign The Hooded Man (http://www.killershrike.com/SanDora/Characters/NPCs/Nuetrals/Koros%20Fhalian.HTML) and Ergal Sharlia (http://www.killershrike.com/SanDora/Characters/NPCs/Nuetrals/Ergal%20Sharlia.HTML)

[bigdamnhero]

I'm running a game currently and I've set up casters to get spells at RC divided by 5. What can I say, I like spell casters to be flexible.

I've done that too, and never had a problem with it. It makes FH feel less like Champions IMHO if the casters have a wide variety of spells to choose from rather than a handful of uber-spells.

Frameworks are another way to increase flexibility without increasing overall power level. The last FH game I played in we all had VPPs, but all spells had to be learned in game, as well as GM-approved. You can spend XP to increase your pool, but the spells themselves don't get more powerful until/unless you can use Spell Research skill to re-design the spell accordingly.

I'm just trying to stare into my Crystal Ball and see how non-casters will develop alongside casters and whether it will end up that casters completely overshadow things or not.
If you're not careful, yes this can happen. The trick, as others have suggested, is 1) put limitations on magic that make it harder to use in certain circumstances, and 2) make sure the non-casters get something to play with as well, whether it's magic items or non-spell abilities built as powers.

[Tywyll]

Hey guys,

I appreciate the responses. It hasn't exactly hit on what I meant.

My magic system is limited in many of the ways that KS mentioned in his document. However, I don't know if those limits are enough in the long term, when a Wizard can 'easily' get his hands on a 4d6 RKA (by easily I mean cheaply, especially at /5 cost) what does the fighter do that compensates, short of give him tons of magic goodies?

[CraterMaker]

Martial Arts can be a great power booster for the non-Mage..
With a few DC's, they can get to the 4d6 KA level pretty easy..

Or just let them buy heroic abilities at Points/5...

-CraterMaker

[Thia Halmades]

Sword Tricks can boost very easily through the intelligent application of CSLs. Remember that in a heroic setting it's a 2:1 ratio - so it takes two Damage CSLs to equal ONE Killing Attack DC. In this regard, you can easily allow people to develop up to 4d6 Killing, and if they want to spend the CSLs to raise their magic, hey, they can. Just make sure you've put together a 'balanced' magic system that won't break under stress.

[Killer Shrike]

Hey guys,

I appreciate the responses. It hasn't exactly hit on what I meant.

My magic system is limited in many of the ways that KS mentioned in his document. However, I don't know if those limits are enough in the long term, when a Wizard can 'easily' get his hands on a 4d6 RKA (by easily I mean cheaply, especially at /5 cost) what does the fighter do that compensates, short of give him tons of magic goodies?
At 1/5th cost I predict that you will experience some play balance issues, particularly as the campaign ramps into higher play levels, unless the Magic System is highly controlled.

That's one of the reasons I don't like the divisor method of Magic System design.

Another reason I don't like it is that its such a generic approach it is more difficult to have Magic Systems with differing flavors.

If you tell us some details about your intended campaign power level, and the Magic System you plan to use we could be more helpful.

Also, you might find this page on my site useful to organize your thoughts on your campaign: Paradigm Worksheet (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/Paradigms/ParadigmWorksheet.shtml); and here are some Sample Paradigms (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/campaignParadigms.shtml) as comparison points.

[Black Rose]

Possible things to limit magic overpowering the game:

Make sure to have interesting non-magical abilities for the other guys to play with. Thief-y types need cool dodges and skulking tricks, maybe some nifty knife moves. Fighters need spiffy combat tricks. Everyone can use cool side bits, like animal followers, or lotsa contacts. Remember too, it's not all fighting; depending on the setting, you can give the "other guys" perks (not necessarily "Perks") that will shine just as brightly as any spell.

Don't let the mages have spells willy-nilly, and definitely don't let them "have" anything more powerful than anyone else; that sort of thing is always carefully given at your discretion. I could be wrong, but I'd say the best bet is to make sure that, in every direct one-to-one comparison of mage-to-"other guys", the mage comes up just a little bit short. It doesn't have to be in total power, but the mage shouldn't do as much damage as the fighter unless it costs him somewhere else (time, END, Skill Roll, material components, whatever), nor should he be able to skulk as well as the thief, etc etc etc. Remember, the mage is (usually) the toolbox guy, the generalist; fighters whale on the baddies, thieves backstab and pick locks, and clerics heal. Mages do what they can't do, or help them do their jobs a little easier.

[CUnknown]

In my games, it tends to be the other way around--Fighters are more powerful than Mages (at least at low point values). One of the main reasons is that Fighters can just pick up a bow to get that 2d6 RKA for a 1-pt weapon familiarity. Mages need to pay -points- for the same thing (I don't do the /3 or /5 rule), so Fighters start off with a huge edge, at least when it comes to raw damage dealing.

4d6 RKA? I just wouldn't allow a beginning character to start off with a spell that powerful, that does sound very unbalancing. Make him pay his dues, starting with a 2d6 RKA first and have him build it up over the course of play.. maybe never even getting to 4d6, that sounds amazingly powerful.

[Killer Shrike]

Everything in the HERO System is relative. The "power" of a 4d6 K attack can't be evaluated in a vacuum; it's only meaningful within the context of what is typical in a given campaign.

[CUnknown]

True. I was assuming a "realistic" Fantasy game, where most PCs have bodys in the 10-15 range and armor in the 3-6 range. So, a 4d6 KA will take you out in one shot, more or less..

[Killer Shrike]

True. I was assuming a "realistic" Fantasy game, where most PCs have bodys in the 10-15 range and armor in the 3-6 range. So, a 4d6 KA will take you out in one shot, more or less..
Yes, in a lower powered paradigm, its uber lethal. In a higher powered paradigm where defenses are higher, combat luck is common, DCV's are elevated, SPEEDs are higher (allowing more defensive actions to be taken while still mounting a creditable offense), and so forth it might be average or laughably ineffective.

There is also the idea of Damage Over Time to consider; so even in a campaign where 4d6 is bad @$$, if a character can say do that once or twice a combat its probably on par with a 3d6 attack that can be used semi-reliably, while a 4d6 attack that can only be used once or twice and has disruptable initialization lims might be equivalent to a a 2 - 2 1/2d6 attack that can be used at will.

That's all very loose, but the idea is there. The cresting and stun lotto effects make it very difficult to gauge precisely, but on a bar graph over a long enough period of time reliable consistency usually wins out over peaky spikes.

[Tywyll]

Hey KS,

Ok, some basic ground rules. This is an old, old campaign setting I've created and run on and off, in various systems, for about 16 years now. The primary system I've used has been DnD, so many DnDisms find there way into the setting.

AS far as feel, think something like WHFRP (which is to say most of it is quite gritty and low/dark fantasy, but there is also some rediculously potent/powerful characters and it isn't an assumption that PCs can't eventually be 'those guys'). The players started with 150 pt characters (well, I gave them a 15 xp bonus). We've played for several months now and I have some 200-220 pt characters.

Because I prefer games where casters have lots of spells, I went with the Div/5 for the most part. This may have been a mistake, but it helps model some aspects of the DnD caster while getting rid of others that I don't like.

Right now, the balance isn't too off. The Thief is the best at sneaking. The Archer is deadly with his elven MA (and can do around 3d6RKA), and of course the Wiz is best at variable stuff.

He does have some heavy duty lightning spells (4d6 being the biggest). His spells come off an END reserve, and he can only buy up to 1/4 the Reserve in REC, and it only REC once every 6 hours... so if he throws spells willy-nilly he will be tapped and useless.

I ran the Siege module to start the game (though I altered the army to fit my world... no orcs you see... and turned it into a human force with necromancers and a few sorcerers). During that game he martialled his magic /extremely/ carefully, mostly because other casters occasionally dispelled it, and he didn't want to reveal himself. So that worked great.

Then, they went on a short dungeon crawl. They all knew the area they were in was fairly small and easy to back out of, so he felt quite happy to throw out the lightning at every Skeletal Champion he came across.

This was the only time I began to get concerned for the long term.

I guess I'm wondering what these characters might look like in another 100 points, and whether the casters will just completely top out everyone else.

My spell system does have RSR, Foci, and other limitations, on top of the END reserve thing.

I suppose another thing worth mentioning is that no one has any familiarity with HERO in my group except me. We've been playing for months and they still have no real interest in learning the system, being content to focus on RP. That's great, of course, but it means I'm alone with my system concerns.

Does that help clarify the situation?

BTW-very awesome Campaign Guidelines. If I get more time, i'll sit down and fill that out for my world. :)

[Killer Shrike]

Here's my standard advice -- if you are worried about where the characters will be in another 100 points, then sit down and make a version of the characters you are concerned about by adding another 100 points to them.

Of course your players will choose to go in directions other than where you go, but just do a worst case scenario applying the trends you are seeing currently.

When you are done, compare the characters and see if your fears are well founded or if things smooth out.

It doesnt take that long to do, you can even reuse the characters later as NPCs (suitably disguised), and it will save you the effort of worrying about it for months.

If you do notice something amiss you can take gentler steps to stave off the eventual outcome than if you wait until it becomes a capital P problem visible even to the non system mechanics of the group.

As the Game Mechanic said -- see me now or see me later ;)

[Nevenall]

I feel that Extra Time limitations are one of the best way to limit the effectiveness of magic versus non magic combatants.
In my campaign the base time for casting a spell is 2 phases. That makes a 4d6K firebolt every other phase vaguely equivalent to 2d6K per phase for a fighter. Of course, that doesn't take into account the effect of armor.

I also require spells to be powered by an END Reserve which the mage can only buy with a REC equal to the reserve and the REC takes 10 hours to recover.

[AmadanNaBriona]

One trick I'm fond of, and have used on several magic systems/styles, is a custom Limitation on the END reserve...
Limited Power: Taxing :
Character spends 1 Long Term Endurance for every 5 End Reserve End points used. (-1/2).

The LTE rules are pretty soft on characters....as long as you take it fairly easy and recover often. Burning up a lot of LTE in a short time span can really cramp your style. Good for making those "The mage has overtaxed his powers. Now we must save ourselves" moments.

[UltraRob]

Thread- Ressurect!

Just to add my 2 cents.

END Reserves bought with a max of INTx5, and a max REC of INT/5 that recovers once per hour will pretty much bring those mages right down to earth with the rest of the PCs pretty fast. It means the PCs just can't sling without consequence, and worry about resting a lot.

Sample:

Merlon the Magnificent: INT 10- 50 END/ REC:2/hr
Harkon of the Golden Sun: INT:20- 100 END/ REC:4/hr

Rob

[Fedifensor]

What do you do about mages wearing armor and then casting spells that give them more DEF?

[UltraRob]

It seems most people here prefer to house rule that magic armour and real armour doesn't stack to prevent that. (Citing the "real armour" limitation as including this.) You cast your magic armour, you still only take the higher value of the magic and the armour- not both.

This is a bit of a kludge, since it would be nice to have mages who can improve armour and even makes sense, but unfortunately the way HERO scales this is a bit of a weak spot when it comes to running Fantasy.

Rob

[NuSoardGraphite]

I've found that Magic as a Variable Power Pool is the easiest way to control magic.

How's that you say, because of the high costs associated with a VPP (one can only apply limitations to the control cost and never the pool itself) a Mage in a relatively low to moderate point campaign (150ish) can never really afford high levels of power without being deficient just about everywhere else. And in addition to this, the active point limits of the campaign are much easier to enforce with a VPP...attempting to purchase a pool any higher than 60 active points is exceedingly prohibitive.

[UltraRob]

I've found that Magic as a Variable Power Pool is the easiest way to control magic.

How's that you say, because of the high costs associated with a VPP (one can only apply limitations to the control cost and never the pool itself) a Mage in a relatively low to moderate point campaign (150ish) can never really afford high levels of power without being deficient just about everywhere else. And in addition to this, the active point limits of the campaign are much easier to enforce with a VPP...attempting to purchase a pool any higher than 60 active points is exceedingly prohibitive.

But, how do you keep them from running roughshod with those points since they can in theory do anything? Do you make them use a spell list or have other limitations?

Rob

[NuSoardGraphite]

But, how do you keep them from running roughshod with those points since they can in theory do anything? Do you make them use a spell list or have other limitations?

Rob

Exactly. Magic is difficult to come by. You have to find an instructional manual, which are rare and jealously gaurded. You have to find someone to teach you, which most Sorcerors are a solitary and untrusting lot. And tutelage in a magical college is expensive (a good way to relieve PC's of those ridiculously large dragon hoards!) And inventing your own spells is both costly and time-consuming.

Of course, as a GM, I would always encourage "on-the-fly" magical manipulation, but such manipulation is difficult (double the normal Requires Skill Roll penalty...-1 per 5 Active points!) and taxing to the mage (X2 Endurance cost...and can't add Reduced Endurance advantage to such magical operations)

[CourtFool]

Magic Users will always be more powerful. Just accept it. Your life will be so much easier.

[Tywyll]

I accept that, but the issue is more from a player design stand point: why play a different kind of character if Mages are simply far more potent in most arenas?

[PhilFleischmann]

What do you do about mages wearing armor and then casting spells that give them more DEF?

NND
NND, Does BODY
Dispel "Wizard Armor Spell"
Dispel/Drain/Suppress Armor
Transform: Armor to Flakes of Rust
Flash
Darkness
Darkness: vs Hearing (no more spells with Incantations)
Entangle (no more spells with Gestures)
Armor Piercing
Find Weakness
Drain STUN/BODY/END/or whatever else you like
Does Knockback, Double Knockback
Real Armor? How is it they're wearing it all the time? Doesn't it interfere with Gestures?

That ought to hold you.

[OddHat]

In HERO, don't gimp the non spellcasters. Combat Luck, Martial Arts with weapons elements, Talents, Super Skills from Pulp Hero and Dark Champions, custom Super Skills ... You can build very effective non magic users on the same point totals as spellcasters. Use standard framework rules rather than the /3 option (or /5, as per the OP), or allow everyone the same huge discount on Talents and Super Skills you're giving to spellcasters for spells.

When you set up a situation where the Spellcasters are effectively built on more points than the non-Spellcasters, of course the non-Spellcasters are going to look weak in comparison.

Zornwil recently mentioned that the /3 rule was particularly useful if you wanted to play in a D&D setting using HERO rules. Fair enough, and I can see the fun in it. Killer Shrike's D&D conversion work is very cool, and a must see for those with that goal (iirc KS doesn't use the /3 option). For my part, I prefer to drop the D&D paradigm entirely and go for different tropes.

[Fedifensor]

I accept that, but the issue is more from a player design stand point: why play a different kind of character if Mages are simply far more potent in most arenas?

You have to be careful about the spell selection of mages. In particular, I like making mages pick up 'basic' spells before they can get to the good stuff. If your group's mage focuses on 2 or 3 spells and doesn't bother buying other spells, that's a clue that he's too effective for his point total.

That's why I really like the Expertise limitation (it was in 4E, not sure about 5E). The character can't just buy a few spells (one offensive, one defensive, one or two miscellaneous)...it encourages them to have a full selection of spells with varied effects.

[Old Man]

Magic Users will always be more powerful. Just accept it. Your life will be so much easier.

In noncombat situations, absolutely.

[Manic Typist]

Magic Users will always be more powerful. Just accept it. Your life will be so much easier.

"Oi, boys. This here wizard looks to be gettin' uppity. Takin' airs and all that. Thinks that cuz he wears fancy robes that he can tell us wot's wot. Now, I might not have all kinds of fancy learning or nothing, but I spects that sixty of us can take one of him, women's clothes or no."

You were saying? ;)

[Kristopher]

For my part, I prefer to drop the D&D paradigm entirely and go for different tropes.

Same here.

[bigdamnhero]

Active Point caps: they're not just for superheroes anymore. :) If the warrior can only do 6 DCs with his sword, then the wizard should generally be limited to 6 DCs with his lightning blast. (Exceptions made for certain Adv/Lims/etc, of course.) Similarly, if the campaign guidelines are that rDEF is limited to 8, then the wizard can wear 3 DEF armor and cast a 5 DEF spell, but no more than that. "Sorry Dave. Cool idea, but it's a game balance thing..."

You have to be careful about the spell selection of mages. In particular, I like making mages pick up 'basic' spells before they can get to the good stuff. If your group's mage focuses on 2 or 3 spells and doesn't bother buying other spells, that's a clue that he's too effective for his point total.
Good suggestion. Personally, I like using Frameworks for spells, specifically because they increase versatility but limit power levels.

Another way to "encourage" players to take more than 2-3 spells is with liberal use of Limitations. Instead of buying a straight RKA, useable in all situations like a superhero power, make them buy "Galthar's Bolts of Orc-Rending" which only works on orcs and goblin folk. Or "Lorelei's Crimson Death" which is very powerful, but can only be used once a day, so they better take a few back-up spells. Etc.

I've also found players seem to be more accepting of taking low-powered spells if they know they can/might be able to increase them later (through spell research or whatever). If they know a 20AP spell is never going to be more than 20AP, they're more likely to view it as a waste of points and go for a smaller number of more-powerful spells.

[OddHat]

In noncombat situations, absolutely.

Well, I can see this point of view, but again it's more to do with how magic works in the campaign and the character build guidelines than anything else.

If you allow Jack Magus to cast megascale teleport gate spells, then no Superskill that can reasonably still be seen as not-magic will let Johnny Axe compete out of combat.

On the other hand, if Jack Magus can only manage his Megascale Teleport spells from one stone circle to another, then Johnny Axe's "I found some horses" Superskill (Summon: Wild Horses, Target Must Inhabit Locale, Target Arrives Under Own Power, Amicable) has a reasonable chance to compete as a means for moving the party around.

[PhilFleischmann]

Q: Why are "magic users" more powerful than other characters?

A: Because the GM lets them be.

Presumably, the GM lets them be more powerful because he wants it that way. Any GM who doesn't want magic users to be more powerful than other characters can prevent this with a heavy dose of vitamin N.

[CourtFool]

Presumably, the GM lets them be more powerful because he wants it that way. Any GM who doesn't want magic users to be more powerful than other characters can prevent this with a heavy dose of vitamin N.

I assure you, I did not want it that way. I am willing to bet not all of the other GMs whose fantasy campaigns I was in wanted it that way either.

What guideline would you suggest I use for prescribing this miracle cure you refer to as 'Vitamin N'?

[OddHat]

I assure you, I did not want it that way. I am willing to bet not all of the other GMs whose fantasy campaigns I was in wanted it that way either.

What guideline would you suggest I use for prescribing this miracle cure you refer to as 'Vitamin N'?

I don't know what Phil would suggest, but there are plenty of good suggestions in this thread.

1) No special point breaks for spell casters. Frameworks or no frameworks, everyone pays the same price for powers, whether we call them Spells, Talents, or Super Skills.

2) No special Point / Defense / Damage Cap exceptions for spell casters. If the best attack a non spell caster can launch is a 2d6 KA, the best attack a spell caster can launch is a 2d6 KA. If the best combination of armor and talents will get a non spell caster a 12 rPD, the best combination of spells and armor will also max out at a 12 rPD.

3) No special gear exemptions for spell casters. If you can make the non spell caster almost helpless by taking away his sword and armor, you can make the spell caster almost helpless by taking away his spell casting focuses. If the spell casters are allowed to cast without any focuses, the non spell casters had best be built with some martial arts / talents / whatever that keep them from being helpless without their gear.

4) Don't let magic accomplish things outside of combat that couldn't be managed with similarly priced and available talents, skills and super skills.

If the above doesn't fit your vision for the campaign, and you decide you don't want to look for other ways to keep spell casters and non spell casters balanced, fair enough, that's your call.

[CourtFool]

Thank you, OddHat. Some excellent guidelines. I have seen a lot of posts considering discounts or Power Frameworks for spells but not many at all calling for the same to apply to Super Skills and Talents. Deadly Blow at 1/5 cost…weeeeeeee!

I think number 4 might kill a lot of Fantasy campaigns. No 'Flight' spells? Or how would you make Flight available outside of magic items? Or are you including magic items? Wings maybe…but I would think Winged Folk would not be as plentiful as magic.

[1EyedJack]

In a game where you have good synergy bettewn the players each character depends on the party, if your magic users can defeat the entire party single handedly the you have a game balance issue. If the mage is very powerful but needs the cleric to heal him and the warrior to watch his back in a fight and the scout to keep him from getting ambushed then your headed down the right path.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Thank you, OddHat. Some excellent guidelines. I have seen a lot of posts considering discounts or Power Frameworks for spells but not many at all calling for the same to apply to Super Skills and Talents. Deadly Blow at 1/5 cost…weeeeeeee!

I think number 4 might kill a lot of Fantasy campaigns. No 'Flight' spells? Or how would you make Flight available outside of magic items? Or are you including magic items? Wings maybe…but I would think Winged Folk would not be as plentiful as magic.

I've successfully ran Fantasy campaigns that lasted for years without a single flying character. Heck, I've run sucessful long term campaigns with no magic-users at all. In general I've seldom had pure Magic User archtypes dominate, although I could see how using a cost divisor for magic could change that..... Part of the reason I like using 250 point characters for FH games is it allows enough points to build a spellcaster without requiring a point cost break to keep them competetive. Every 150 point spellcaster I've seen in play tends to lack in the whole "epic" fantasy feel.... most of the time in play they end up tracking like Skeeve the Apprentice or Mako (as the Sorcerrer) in Conan.

Vitamin "N" works a lot like taking echinacea for a cold.... better at preventing a problem before it arises than curing one once the symptoms are showing. It's all about establishing ground rules and balance at the outset of the campaign.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]


1) No special point breaks for spell casters. Frameworks or no frameworks, everyone pays the same price for powers, whether we call them Spells, Talents, or Super Skills.

Agreed.

2) No special Point / Defense / Damage Cap exceptions for spell casters. If the best attack a non spell caster can launch is a 2d6 KA, the best attack a spell caster can launch is a 2d6 KA. If the best combination of armor and talents will get a non spell caster a 12 rPD, the best combination of spells and armor will also max out at a 12 rPD.

tend to agree. SeeDND for example as well as many pre-fab games of fantasy ilk. there aren't many examples where the wizards "armor spell" does better than a fighter can get in terms of potency... though it might be better in terms of incidentals. The damage may be disproportionate to some dgeree if fr example frequency factors apply. if the fighter gets multiple swings but the mage gets one firebolt, balance the total damage done after defenses.

3) No special gear exemptions for spell casters. If you can make the non spell caster almost helpless by taking away his sword and armor, you can make the spell caster almost helpless by taking away his spell casting focuses. If the spell casters are allowed to cast without any focuses, the non spell casters had best be built with some martial arts / talents / whatever that keep them from being helpless without their gear.

this one i think is a BE CAREFUL.

I would suggest you have comparable weaknesses, not similar ones. The mage for instance hits "dispel magics" but how often does the fighter hit dispel weapons?

comparable suggestions might include many different factors, each throwing some style into the mix...
incantations required provides a means of stopping mages.
gestures ditto

i wouldn't be concerned about having the "problms inherent in using this trait" be the same but about having them be comensurately inhibiting.

but frankly, this is IMO the red herring.

first, having the pc shut down or his primary ablity shut down is not fun so using it as a control tool is problematic.... as any decent Gm wants to minimize the non-fun time.

Second, its a sham. its not balanced to have one guy be "nerfed" in one fight and full strength over powered in the next. So having "times when he will be helpless" doesn't really offset or balance the times when "he is clearly more powerful than everyone else by a wide margin.

a series of sessions where in some mage is weak and hobbled and in others he is overpowered is a series of IMBALANCED scenarios... not a balanced series of encounters.


4) Don't let magic accomplish things outside of combat that couldn't be managed with similarly priced and available talents, skills and super skills.

this one i object to strongly. certainly it can be right for a few campaigns but this mundaning" of magic is sacrificing a lot in order to try and serve up a rather bland pil of balance. Why have magic if its limited to normal stuff?

A different approach might well be to allow fantastic magic but at the same time limit its scope drastically.

For example, perhaps every mage has the option of chosing a "niche" or flavor for his magician. For example, one might be a fire mage, another might be a spirit mage, another might be n iron mage, another a healer and so forth...

well for spells which fall specifically qand clearly in those NARROW, be strict, niches, the mage can have powerful spell. For all other magics, he is limited to 15 ap or maybe 10 ap.

that way each mage has a single ara of effects he is good at and some small utility spells for other stuff. That way he is capable but not overwhelmingly broad. that lets you script encounters to highlight his strengths and others which draw on abilities the other characters have.

For example: the fire mage is obviously good in offensive combat and not so good at defense and not good at subtle sneakery. So a scenario involving sneaking in... the thief gets to ply his stealth because the mage does not have and isn't allowed to buy a 20 ap invisibility spell. Want something toqsted? No problem. I got 3d6 rka for that.

the key gere is to be strictwith what fits inside each niche/flavor and say NO. In some versions of hero magic, the choice of "fire mage" or "animal mage" was nonsense as each had mostly the same splls with different sfx describing them. the mage for fire had a fire force field which somehow stopped things just like armor did and the druid had the same thing described as animals doing kamikaze suciide dives to block weapon strikes aimed at the druid so the choice between fire mage and druid was irrelevent... so put s0ome time and thought into chosing the aloowable niches so that every mage doesn't have magical answers to everything.

***

but it really comes down to a question of DESIGN, world design... what factors in your world prevent magic weilding guys rom being lots better than fighters? If some guys can weave spell and some guys can swing swords, first answer the question "why CANNOT the mages be the top dogs?" That answer ought to then be useful in having the same result apply to your PCs over time.

***

BTW unless the Gm is really out of whack the biggest danager is not the pure mage... its the hybrid. Its the guy who uses spells to enhane his fighting. this mens instead of firebolt where he pays cp for all 4d6 rks he is instead paying to add +2d6 "fiery weapon" to his RKA bow or sword, getting the benefit of the free weapon plus the magic to raise it to exceptional levels, similar effects for "aid to armor" to enhance his plate mail instead of arguing with his Gm about "does force field stack with plate mail" etc. He gets figured's from having decent physical stats and spells to boost them, resulting in a lot of little things which all stack up synergistically.

he is your bigger worry, IMX.

[OddHat]

Thank you, OddHat. Some excellent guidelines. I have seen a lot of posts considering discounts or Power Frameworks for spells but not many at all calling for the same to apply to Super Skills and Talents. Deadly Blow at 1/5 cost…weeeeeeee!

If deadly blow at 1/5 cost is unbalanced, a spell at 1/5 cost that adds 1d6 Killing damage to the weapon the character is using is also unbalanced. Adjusting limitations and equipment around to find a balance is one way to deal with that; personally, I don't use the 1/3 (or in this case 1/5) divisor for magic costs for a start.

I think number 4 might kill a lot of Fantasy campaigns. No 'Flight' spells? Or how would you make Flight available outside of magic items? Or are you including magic items? Wings maybe…but I would think Winged Folk would not be as plentiful as magic.

First, I'd point out that I don't worry about perfectly balancing every character against every other character. I go for a rough balance and ask each player to respect the other players schticks. The goal is to keep the players happy with the game; everything else flows from that.

So, I'm not saying #4 is required or even desirable; I am saying it's an effective way of balancing spell casters against non spell casters, if that is your goal. If it isn't your goal, it isn't a problem.

In my own Imperium Romanum campaign described elsewhere in this forum, (where a perfect balance is not a setting goal) spell casters and non spell casters are built on the same number of points, have access to the same frameworks, and ultimately have some cross over potential.

Most spell casters in Imperium Romanum will never be able to fly in the physical world, unless they get their hands on a Stone of Power or appropriate magic item. A Stone of Power or magic item would work almost as well to allow a non spell caster to fly, and just as well if the character spent the character points to learn how to fully exploit it.

The Imperium Romanum spell caster could spend points to learn to fly in a limited way without a magic item or stone of power, using the SFX and rules of two of the types of magic in the campaign. A non-spell caster couldn't do that, but he could spend a similar number of character points on super skills (accurate leaping defined as acrobatics, clinging defined as incredible climbing ability, flight must land at the end of every phase defined as climbing and acrobatics, whatever) that would give him very similar utility. WHen a similar number of points gets you similar utility, imo the balance is good enough.

If you don't set up a system where spending a similar number points gets you similar utility, groovy, that's your call as GM. The balance change that results is an issue with the setting, not the system.

[OddHat]

I would suggest you have comparable weaknesses, not similar ones. [snip]

i wouldn't be concerned about having the "problms inherent in using this trait" be the same but about having them be comensurately inhibiting.

Sure.

this one i object to strongly. certainly it can be right for a few campaigns but this mundaning" of magic is sacrificing a lot in order to try and serve up a rather bland pil of balance. Why have magic if its limited to normal stuff?

Why indeed. Still, the question was how to keep the spell caster from being more powerful than the non spell caster; that's one solution. Specialization and various restricted magic or class systems work as well.

but it really comes down to a question of DESIGN, world design

And agreed on this.

[PhilFleischmann]

I think number 4 might kill a lot of Fantasy campaigns. No 'Flight' spells? Or how would you make Flight available outside of magic items? Or are you including magic items? Wings maybe…but I would think Winged Folk would not be as plentiful as magic.
Flying mounts (giant eagles, gryphons, dragons, etc.) Airships (possibly pulled by flying creatures)
And no flight at all is a perfectly viable option. In many (most?) fantasy source material, "getting there is half the fun". LotR would be about ten pages long if they could have just flown directly to Mt. Doom (do not pass Gollum, do not collect 200 Dead soldiers' spirits).

[UltraRob]

Flying mounts (giant eagles, gryphons, dragons, etc.) Airships (possibly pulled by flying creatures)
And no flight at all is a perfectly viable option. In many (most?) fantasy source material, "getting there is half the fun". LotR would be about ten pages long if they could have just flown directly to Mt. Doom (do not pass Gollum, do not collect 200 Dead soldiers' spirits).


Yeah, I had a bad experience in one campaign where the players were all different kinds of Mages. As soon as one player learned a flight spell, his character's feet literally never left the ground for the rest of the campaign, and it circumvented pretty much any geographical challenges I had planned for them. You don't realize how powerful flight is in a fantasy game until someone clever has it.

Rob

[UltraRob]

For example, perhaps every mage has the option of chosing a "niche" or flavor for his magician. For example, one might be a fire mage, another might be a spirit mage, another might be n iron mage, another a healer and so forth...

well for spells which fall specifically qand clearly in those NARROW, be strict, niches, the mage can have powerful spell. For all other magics, he is limited to 15 ap or maybe 10 ap.

that way each mage has a single ara of effects he is good at and some small utility spells for other stuff. That way he is capable but not overwhelmingly broad. that lets you script encounters to highlight his strengths and others which draw on abilities the other characters have.

For example: the fire mage is obviously good in offensive combat and not so good at defense and not good at subtle sneakery. So a scenario involving sneaking in... the thief gets to ply his stealth because the mage does not have and isn't allowed to buy a 20 ap invisibility spell. Want something toqsted? No problem. I got 3d6 rka for that.


I rather like this idea! Consider it borrowed!

Rob

[PhilFleischmann]

Yeah, I had a bad experience in one campaign where the players were all different kinds of Mages. As soon as one player learned a flight spell, his character's feet literally never left the ground for the rest of the campaign, and it circumvented pretty much any geographical challenges I had planned for them. You don't realize how powerful flight is in a fantasy game until someone clever has it.
And the same is true for other movement powers, especially Teleportation. How I handle it is this:

1) Absolutely NO MegaScale Movement in FH! And most likely, no MegaScale *anything*.
2) Most likely NO Increased Non-Combat Multiples for Movement. You get the standard x2 at 1/2 CV, but that's it.
3) Any Transportation magic (or other sources), comes with heavy restrictions so that it can't bypass the whole journey trope so prevalent in fantasy. Such restrictions include:
Increased END cost for Flight, et al. - flying for more than a few phases will start to burn LTE. - Oh, yeah, use LTE.
Expendible Focus, difficult to replace - You can't just buy a scale from a dragon's wing that's been soaked in gryphon blood at any olde village shoppe.
Obvious Accessible Focus - Makes flying risky. I grab your broomstick: you fall >splat!<
Side Effects - perhaps flight is only available by ShapeShift/Multiform into a bird, with eventual personality loss, or increase in metabolism, or something even worse.
Limited number of Charges - "Blink"-style Teleport (i.e., for tactical combat advantage) may be available, but not long-distance travel (or even short distance, or through barriers).
Flight only available through flying critters - which must be captured, tamed, and trained. Even then, they're still under the control of the GM. They have to be fed and cared for. Not every village stable can house a hippogryph properly. And there's a limit as to how many passengers they can carry. The GM can easily decide that there are no flying elephants.
There's impassible "terrain," even in the air - maybe there are magical barriers between realms that prevent flying. After all, the Dark Lord is no dummy, he knows that some enemies may be able to fly, so he gaurds his domain against aerial intrusion. There are intelligent, evil birds employed as spies for the Dark Lord.
Flying people call attention to themselves, especially if most people can't fly. This can be a bad thing if you're trying to maintain the element of surprise.
Storms or other weather conditions may prevent flight or make it very dangerous.
Some destinations are underground - no room to fly.
It's harder to navigate in the air - easier to get lost. Landmarks are on the land, that's why they're not called "skymarks".
As a campaign feature, some substances may naturally be impassible with Teleportation, or they can be magically enhanced to prevent Teleporting in/out.