Magic system opinions

[Erkenfresh]

Err, I think I read the "Set Spell List" wrong initially. What I meant was, the player would have to research new spells to add to the VPP. Each spell might cost a few points just to prevent someone from covering all possible powers too quickly. So, it's like a combination of adeptology and wizardry. I don't like the idea of my players coming up with powers on the fly, I could see that slowing play down quite a bit.

[i3ullseye]

With regards to spell usage, and keeping it in check, I tend to favor increased endurance cost. Now I know charges covers the feel of the D20 magic systems a bit more accurrately, but then we run into these issues we have here.

I like to set an end reserve, and have the usual recovery limitations (like sleep time or prayer) and then i calculate how many spells can be cast out fo this reserve. Basically, I limit the number of spells by ensuring the end reserve can only accomadate a specific number of castings in a given day.

This also helps simulate spell levels also. I try to make minor spells cost roughly 3 end or so... and each jump form there increases this by 2 or 3 points. The most powerful spells should cost around 20 End to use. When your reserve is at 100, thats 5 castings of your biggest, or multiple castings of smaller spells.

In one game I had a character with 5 distinct levels of spells... End cost on each were 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25. He had a 100 pt reserve when the game began, and got it up to 150 by campaign end. I limited how quickly he could build this so it was a gradual climb.

For recovery, it had a 5 Rec, with the limitation you had to be fully asleep for 2 hours before it woudl kick in. Normally 3 hours of sleep got him back to full, but anything less than 2 would not let it kick in fully.

So, in summary, I like using End... and especially increased End where warranted, as my limitation tool rather than charges. Charges often end up way mroe advantageous in the long run. Plus having the End reserve gives another way to influence the magic in your world by lettign ley lines or artifacts influece his reserve... or even reduce the casting cost of certain spells.

Like taking a Necromancer talent, and now all Necromancy spells cost 1 end less per level, making the new costs 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20. This alone really lets the primary focus on a school of magic have a major influence on how the character works.

[Killer Shrike]

I like the idea of a spell possibly fizzling. I am thinking of magic being a force of will. The harder you push yourself, the more chance of it not working the way you want it to, unless you've mastered the ability to control it. But, at the same time, it may slow the game down or be less fun for everybody.

Its certainly appropriate for some Magic Systems -- Im just saying that I wouldnt mix RSR w/ Charges. It's too severe of an impediment.

I'm thinking of a couple of possible options here. One would be the Turakian Age method of the player paying Real Cost/3 points per spell. In this case, I'd need to keep endurance in play as a Frequency Control. It's a bit rough, a player could easily dump all their points into just a few spells which leaves little room for anything else.

Personally, I am very much against the divide by 3 method. Not only is it unfairly priced, its also extremely boring and styleless. Its like the burlap sack of Magic Systems; functional but unaesthetic and generally shapeless.

Looking at your adeptology system seems promising too. LTE and END provide good Frequency Control. The "Set Spell List" option would probably be in effect for my campaign providing Acquisition Control with required research, maybe even spending a few character points per spell even though they are part of the VPP. I can still have my schools of magic idea by requiring a seperate research roll for each school. It's sounding so good, I might just dump the whole RSR idea. This system seems really expensive but I think it will allow the character to get many different spells without going overboard.

Adeptology is more "Will & Word" styled. I play around w/ the Active Points available for different types of Powers and how many AP can be used with out burning LTE to inject some flavor, but once you get past that its just a Cosmic VPP with some Limitations on it.

If you are hard core on the "School" model, check out Volomancy -- an Adeptology variant. It is set up to require Talents to use types of Powers (Adjustment, Attack, Body-Affecting, Defense, Mental, Movement, Sense-Affecting, Sensory, and Size) but if you preferred you could easily change that to be SFX or School based.

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyH...olomancy.shtml

One more question, how do you encourage players to take "Conditional Power" limitations without providing a spell list that they have to choose from? I can probably do it on a case by case basis as the player makes them up but a general rule would be helpful.

In a partially Cosmic VPP like Adeptology I don't generally allow many Limitations on effects, unless they have some kind of automatic impact. In otherwords, Lims like Incant and Gesture are inappropriate since they are situational -- when it would be inconvenient the player can just switch around to a version without those Lims so its never really limiting. Other Lims like Activation, Concentration, Side Effects (Always Occurs), Increased END, Extra Time, and so forth CAN be limiting because their effect isnt situational and thus Ill generally allow them on the fly.


The main thing is if you dont want players having a Cosmic VPP (even a limited one), then you can either add a -1/4 Known List Only Lim to the VPP's control Cost, indicating that only spell effects that have been preapproved are allowed, or just not use a Cosmic VPP model at all.


As an aside, you might want to check out the Magecraft Magic System on my web site -- it is Skill & END based, is very flexible and powerful, can support a bewildering array of different character builds, is easy to learn and use, and individual Mages get a tolerable amount of Spells but not too many. The model isnt too friendly to "Spell Schools" out of the box, but that idea could be grafted on to the basic mechanic if you were of a mind to do it.

[Erkenfresh]

Bullseye, I'm also leaning towards END over Charges. It will be a refreshing difference from D&D style magic. The main benefit I see is that the player can choose a few big spells or lots of little spells every day. He'll have to think about loosing his most powerful spells too early and losing all his little ones.

Killer Shrike, the Volomancy thingy is just about right. That's looking pretty good.

I'm gonna let this stew while I'm at work tomorrow. Sometimes a break is all you need (especially when you have an awesome book called Feast for Crows to read).

[Thia Halmades]

Hrm. *slurp* Cool. My turn again. So let's pick up in the midst of the melee here; obviously you've got full access to Killer Shrike's material, and to be totally honest, I'm going to tell you what ghost-angel told me back in the day, which is that ultimately you'll probably wind up using a build like his or absurdly similar to his; he just wrote it down on the 'net first. Feel free to shake your fist at him. I do.

Thia: I think you've got a good suggestion there. As a ground rule, every spell should have at least -1 worth of "Conditional Power" limitations. You can't build a Protection from everything spell under these conditions and the player would have to be creative to make spells like Force Field (only in sunlight). I'm worried that this might be too limiting for certain powers. Like, if I want to "Heal BODY", it really should work. So, perhaps the required Conditional limitations could vary from school to school. I'm not quite sure yet.

The actual mechanics for that I realized I wanted, I learned how to do the math right from Killer Shrike, which is where I needed the most assistance. Like you, I know precisely what I'm going for, I just needed assistance getting from here to there without making my head explode. So you're looking for a variation on a theme; you want to replicate the feel of d20 sorcery. Straight.

NB: I'll tell you what Savinien told me, but it took a while for the advice to sink in; don't try and play d20 in HERO. Play HERO. Rebuilding a magic system and all that is fantastic, but remember that d20 does handwaving, and HERO does not, because it doesn't have too. So don't box out ideas because they don't fit in the first box. It's the difference between buying Windows & LINUX. Windows: It's all prepackaged and that's that. LINUX: You want access to the source code? Go nuts.

Where was I? Oh yes!

Well, in any magic system I've found that I generally prefer the concept of the Framework, although in Grimoire Steve makes a perfectly valid magic system just by having you do the whole 1/3rd thing, and then draw on your own END, which really makes you a super hero, and that's something I actively wanted to avoid. My casters have to work at it. If you're going for Sorcery, the ability to cast on the fly, here are some obvious suggestions:

- Dump the framework and let they buy free-standing spells or talents for spells (Steve put this up in my original thread), and put a cap on the END Reserve (i.e., never more than 10x your controlling skill, so if you have a 14- skill, you'd cap at a 140 pt. END Reserve). It controls the amount of slinging your casters do in a day, and you know when they'll refresh.

- My method of Sorcery is different Killer Shrike's, although he did something similar, my plan was to use an Elemental Control, which would demonstrate the Sorceror's inner mastery and their ability to improve both finitely and across the spectrum of their power. You could build charges into it (which makes sense, since most of your powers will have roughly equilateral Active Costs) or you could use an END Reserve. With Charges, you'll have replicated d20 magic pretty much smack on, but with varying levels of power in the spells that you chuck.

- My Wizards pre-prep (assigning their VPP by spell, only spells known, yadda yadda, using Killer Shrike as a reference, because as I said, he wrote it down first and he was a huge help when I did this) and my Sorcerors cast on the fly, using a Charged Multipower (which I sent directly to the player to see how it worked; we're still shaky on how Sorc's afford higher level slots, so Killer Shrike while we're on the topic, explanation on that?)

Now the tiered system you mention, this is where you have a VPP and the spells inside take Charges 1? This is a great system but I want to avoid preparation. I'm going for a more D&D "sorceror" like feel.

Your Sorc's could either:

- Tap END and call it good (END refreshes after sleep/meditation/blah)
- Tap a Charge and call it good (same concept, but the charges are on the framework, not the individual spells)
- You build a normal VPP and have them burn points out of the pool every time they cast a spell. You do this by assigning (wait for it) a Charge to the spell, noting that once it's cast, the 'spell' is consumed, and the points in the VPP are consumed for the day. This build keeps the PC from slotting in a power in their VPP and then using it perpetually. You can use the exact same mechanics, and simply say "And you cast on the fly, remove the points from your VPP." Killer Shrike probably has a more eloquent way of saying that (or may correct me, which happens ) but that's a perfectly valid way of doing it. I'm not positive a charge can be used that way (it begs the argument, "how do I cast the spell again?") but the mechanics are similar.

I like the idea of a spell possibly fizzling. I am thinking of magic being a force of will. The harder you push yourself, the more chance of it not working the way you want it to, unless you've mastered the ability to control it. But, at the same time, it may slow the game down or be less fun for everybody.

On the topic of limitations (a poor segue, but hey, it's early) I do not use RSR, but I make sure that everyone has the appropriate casting skill because if they get distracted/interrupted, then they have to make a check or fizzle. My concept is simply that magic always works, unless. It's the unless you have to watch out for.

In the rules (don't ask where) it specifically states that in something like a VPP, if you're limited from using your normal lims, you can still cast by shuffling the lims elsewhere. So if you build your VPP at (-1/2) which is always (-1) or more of lims, they can move those under duress to other lims. A very cool inherent push rule. Just an FYI.

I was also drafting Push rules for Wizards, in short, that they can make a Skill Roll to tap their own STUN once the END Reserve and/or Charges and/or VPP were expended. It requires a skill roll (hence, unless) but it could save your butt, and it allows for drama. And I already have one drama queen in my party.

And remember a pretty standard rule of thumb that I use: drama is inherently fun; drama which is bogged down in a half hour worth of mechanics just to get to the goodness is bad. If you want dramatic, you want clean. Do everything possible to keep your math in the background.

I'm thinking of a couple of possible options here. One would be the Turakian Age method of the player paying Real Cost/3 points per spell. In this case, I'd need to keep endurance in play as a Frequency Control. It's a bit rough, a player could easily dump all their points into just a few spells which leaves little room for anything else.

This is why I use the VPP for Wizards; in Steve's Turakian setting, Wizards know fewer spells than in a high fantasy/spell bookian D&D type setting, but they use them far more often (personal END). As you can imagine, when you're nerfing the party Wizard, everything goes straight to hell when you threaten to take away even one of his spells. Under a VPP he can keep all of his spells no sweat, and his only limits now are rebuilding them and tossing them within his VPP x 2. Cause 180 Real Points of spells in a day is pretty freaking powerful.

Insofar as power-dumping to a few spells, again, this is HERO, not d20. If that's how they roll, let them do it. Seriously. The points are the same; the points a caster burns on a VPP - even a limited one - are the points they burn for the right to tell physics to sit down & shut up, to quote Varsuvius a moment (although I don't know a wizard who hasn't said that, that's just an immediate reference). If they opt to be a skill-less wonder, hey! No skills for you! It's not d20, so there's no change there anyway (other than they no longer get +5 skill points per level from their INT).

Like taking a Necromancer talent, and now all Necromancy spells cost 1 end less per level, making the new costs 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20. This alone really lets the primary focus on a school of magic have a major influence on how the character works.

I hadn't even thought of this yet. That's genius. Repped. He's got a great idea here; you're a specialist? Pay points, less cost. I can't do it because I'd have people point dumping to it like mad; it'd have to cost 10 points to not be unbalanced I think, but I have a very strict sense of balance, my cohorts may have a different opinion. But the core idea is brilliant.

I think that's all I've got at this moment. I may edit for clarity. Hope that helps.

Good morning!

[Erkenfresh]

That's quite a long post there Thia! Throughout the day, I was thinking some more about it. I might go something like this:
1. Magic-users buy a Cosmic VPP. The control cost has: Cosmic (+2), Variable Limits (-1 worth, -1/2), Concentration (-1/4), Delayed Phase (-1/4), Slightly Limited Class of powers (Magic, -1/4), Side effects (LTE, -1/2), Only from a list of known spells (-1/4). How convenient, the limitations and advantages are equal. So, 10 points of pool = 15 character points.
2. All spells must cost endurance.
3. The LTE side effect is as from KS's web site:
http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyH...eptology.shtml
4. Magic-users get the amount of VPP points divided by 5 in spells in the "known list" (perhaps this could be based on stats instead, EGO/5 + INT/5 or some such thing). They can add additional spells at the cost of 2 points each, regardless of it's active or real cost.
5. Magic-users must practice learning the new spell before they can add it to their "known list". This would be based on a Magic skill roll, a seperate one for each school of magic. Failure means they have to try again, success means they can add it. Bonuses/penalties apply like a -1 penalty for each 10 points of Real Cost, +1 if they already have a similar spell, +1 if they make an appropriate complimentary skill roll (like PS:Blacksmithing for a spell to summon a sword). Just because the VPP increases in size doesn't mean all the spells within do as well. The Magic-user will have to practice upgrades for them but will be much faster than starting from scratch. Perhaps 1 day per 10 Real Cost of practice would be fitting.
How's it sounding so far?

[Erkenfresh]

Ahh, also, I might add an endurance reserve. It has many benefits pointed out by Thia such as a way to limit spells per day. But maybe the LTE side effect is enough for this?

[austenandrews]

New spells are extremely cheap. 60 active point spells cost a mere 3 points in the multipower. This is both good and bad. It makes diversification more attractive to the player which is good. What's bad is that limitations like "Only works against fire" are completely worthless. Why purchase "Force Field (0 PD/20 ED), Only against fire" for 1 point when you can have "Force Field (0 PD/20 ED) for 2 points?

I'm of the firm opinion that numbers are wholly inadequate to coax people into designing spells the way you want them to be. If you want them to buy specialized defenses, tell them they have to buy specialized defenses. Don't beat around the bush by fiddling with the numbers to create "paths of least resistance." That creates a bigger mess than you might think.

[Old Man]

I'm surprised no one has yet suggested the EC as a framework for FH spellcasters; it's certainly my favorite. If the character takes many spells it's effectively a 50% cost break, which eliminates the need for the out-of-thin-air 1/3 cost break in 5th ed. FH, and also encourages the spellcaster to take more than one or two spells, and have all those spells at about the same power level. It also makes it worthwhile to have spell-specific limitations, and it eliminates the problems of excessive versatility that VPPs and MPs have. I'd much rather just use an EC than go through all these contortions with END reserves and whatever to make VPPs or MPs work.

[Thia Halmades]

- My method of Sorcery is different Killer Shrike's, although he did something similar, my plan was to use an Elemental Control, which would demonstrate the Sorceror's inner mastery and their ability to improve both finitely and across the spectrum of their power. You could build charges into it (which makes sense, since most of your powers will have roughly equilateral Active Costs) or you could use an END Reserve. With Charges, you'll have replicated d20 magic pretty much smack on, but with varying levels of power in the spells that you chuck.

I did. Easy to miss, but I did. :P I don't use the END Reserve, although I like it as a basic idea, Elemental Controls were my solution for Sorcery in my campaign; it makes sense, you 'gain power' as a Sorceror, the whole shebang. It's a great build, and as Killer Shrike said, it's one of the few that increases in value over time.

The VPP is pretty easy once you wrap your brain around the general concept of it; using it for Wizards has proven entirely suitable. I had a Sorceror use an MP as I mentioned, and that got ugly fast. However, Markdoc made a point on another thread, which is that it is important to charge folk for the spells they take, to avoid them picking a single ub3r sp3ll and hosing the deck with it.

I also think I'm going to have to impose a limit on the max points in a given spell, but I don't know where it is yet. Hrm.

Good morning!

[mudpyr8]

I personally like the 1/3 cost method. For 150 point games it makes spells affordable without all the complexity of managing a MP, VPP, or EC. For any given power it may or may not work in any of those constructs depending on the other powers already there.

When you take a snapshot of a built character it isn't that far off from any of those methods and the points are just about right. Especially for new players, handing them a grimoire and telling them that when they choose a spell and write it on their character sheet to divide the cost by 3 that makes things very simple.

I'm certainly not saying that the 1/3 method is the be all end all, just that it is a perfectly valid approach to spellcasting that is very accessable.

As for limitations having value, consider having them impact the skill roll. If your normal sweet of lims is gestures, incantations, RSR (only in extreme -1/4; roll only when distracted/under stress), and concentation = -1, then say for every -1/4 above and beyond those you get +1 to the casting roll. That way if someone selects "Only vs. Fire" -1/2, they will be +2 to casting. Sure, spell cost wise the limitation has little value in an MP but the GM can assess whatever mods are appropriate when RSR is in play. There's nothing wrong with doing this from a system PoV, and it makes those lims have value. If you don't like the benchmark of "everything beyond -1", use "any limitation that alters the affect of the power but not its instantiation". That way things like extra time, gestures, and so on wouldn't be considered but gradual effect, limited power, reduced pen, etc. would.

[Thia Halmades]

Good morning, mudpyr8!

You said this:

As for limitations having value, consider having them impact the skill roll. If your normal sweet of lims is gestures, incantations, RSR (only in extreme -1/4; roll only when distracted/under stress), and concentation = -1, then say for every -1/4 above and beyond those you get +1 to the casting roll. That way if someone selects "Only vs. Fire" -1/2, they will be +2 to casting. Sure, spell cost wise the limitation has little value in an MP but the GM can assess whatever mods are appropriate when RSR is in play. There's nothing wrong with doing this from a system PoV, and it makes those lims have value. If you don't like the benchmark of "everything beyond -1", use "any limitation that alters the affect of the power but not its instantiation". That way things like extra time, gestures, and so on wouldn't be considered but gradual effect, limited power, reduced pen, etc. would.

And I'm pretty certain I don't understand what you're saying. Can you give a clearer example? I am, in fact, using the RSR under duress (1/4! Hadn't thought of that, thanks!) but I'm at a loss as to how you're handling the rest of your example. Can you clarify?

Thanks!

[hancock.tom]

I'm surprised no one has yet suggested the EC as a framework for FH spellcasters;

I think Killer Shrike has an example of this on his website, under framework based magic systems.

I was thinking of using a variation on it in my next FH campaign, for all of the reasons mentioned by old man.

[mudpyr8]

Sure. Let's say you have the following:

EB; Reduced Pen -1/4, Living Targets Only -1/4, Gestures -1/4, Incantations -1/4, Concentration -1/4, RSR (Duress only) -1/4.
Limitations = -1 1/2

So, since as the GM I've made my baseline -1 (arbitrarily but based on the fact I assume characters will take gestures, incantations, concentration, RSR), IF they had to make a skill roll, that roll would be +2 becuse the spell is limited above and beyond the base line at +1 per -1/4 limitations.

The magic system I use, and is used for Narosia, incorporates limitations in to the casting difficulty of the spell. That way regardless of the spell's cost the limitations do have an effect on the mage's ability to bring a spell into play, and thus have value.

[Killer Shrike]

I think Killer Shrike has an example of this on his website, under framework based magic systems.

I was thinking of using a variation on it in my next FH campaign, for all of the reasons mentioned by old man.

Ya. Aeldnearen, a combination access Talent / Elemental Control system:

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyH...ldenaren.shtml