Overcoming Spell Limitations

[bigdamnhero]

I’m writing up the ground rules for how magic will work in an upcoming low fantasy game I'm running. Most spells will be fairly low-level (40 AP or less?) and will require a lot of Limitations (at least -1 worth?) including Requires a Roll. But to give the players a little flexibility, I’m thinking of adding a House Rule based on the “Overcoming Limitations” section in FH6 (p277). So if you really need to rush a spell that normally takes a Full Phase, or you’re caught without your Foci, or you're gagged and can’t Incant or whatever, you have the flexibility to try to cast it without those Limitations; the cost is that each -1/4 of Limitations you ignore reduces the Skill Roll by -1 and Increases the END Cost by x1 (ie x1 becomes x2, x4 becomes x5, etc).

 

What I can’t decide is whether to make that something like a Maneuver that any caster can use (ie free)? Or a Talent that only certain casters have mastered (ie spent points on)? If the latter, how many points feels about right to you? Of course I could always just throw Variable Limitations on everything, but that seems clunky especially if this is going to a campaign-wide setting.

 

Thoughts?

[Outsider]

Variable Limitation with a limited field of variables allowed has actually worked pretty well for me in the past.   This might not work as well if your players are really unfamiliar with the system though.

 

I'd also suggest limiting what limitations can fulfill the variable to 2 or three things that can be traded off, in order to make the whole think easier to run.

 

You could also have only certain things be flexible with certain other things. (Take more than one Variable Limitation)

 

Example : You can trade casting time and endurance cost, and you can trade incantations and gestures.. But you can't trade extra time for gestures.   

[mallet]

I did something sort of similar in a low magic campaign a few years back, but basically how I set it up was every spell had a Side Effect Limitation on it so that for every other limitation "ignored" by the caster he/she took X pts of Body damage (non-resistible) with the max damage being equal to the END of casting the spell. It worked out pretty well as it made the players think about how desperately they needed to cast the spell. In that campaign the "fluff" of magic was that it was based on the mage using personal energy to power the spells, normally limitations (extra time, foci, gestures, etc...) made the strain on their bodies non-existent (apart from END cost) but if they chose not to use some (or all) of those limitations then casting the spell caused them physical harm. 

[Asperion]

I got thinking of using the Power (Magic) skill. Every step earlier on the time chart, relevance of the foci, or whatever the limitation the char is attempting to overcome will make a cumulative -2.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I have some talents built that let players ignore common limitations on spells up to a certain power level (like incantations on up to 50 active points).  Magic items that do that are pretty cool too: I don't have to concentrate to cast my spells any more!

[Lucius]

 

I have two suggestions.

 

1) Instead of imposing the Incantations, Gestures, etc. Limitations, use Increased END Cost: X10 in Certain Circumstances, and define the circumstances as failing to use the incantations, gestures, extra time, etc. At that high an END cost, the mage is very likely to be burning STUN for END.

 

2) Instead of imposing the Incantations, Gestures, etc. Limitations, use Extreme Side Effects, automatic (so, whether the spell succeeds or not, whether the magic roll fails or not) "whenever the character does some specific act" and define the specific act as failing to use the incantations, gestures, extra time, etc. You can scale it so that the more "shortcuts" taken, the worse the Side Effects. Of course, you could also drop the "automatic" aspect and then the Side Effects hit only on a failed roll.

 

And a third.

 

3) You can always use both of the above. That would give a combined -4 1/2 Limitation, so hopefully players won't squawk about not getting to count the Incantations etc. as Limitations.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Side Effects: Palindromedary

[Urlord]

I would do this with a Talent:

 

A Talent called Spell Mastery (Cost 5 CP) which allows a spell caster to ignore limitations for additional difficulty to the casting roll.  The only limitation that cannot be ignored is Requires a Skill Roll.

[NuSoardGraphite]

For my campaign, it is not a Talent, it is something every magic user can do. Depending on the type of magic (basic types are Essence, Channeling and Mentalism). Each one has a different set of limitations but they all have Requires a skill roll and total up to -1 in Limitations.

 

I use the penalty of -1 per 10 active to the casting roll. In addidtion to this, I also subtract the Encumbrance penalty from worn armor.

 

 

If a caster cannot fulfill any of his casting requirements such as Incantation, Gestures, Concentration or Focus, the caster may still attempt the spell, but at -3 additional penalty per requirement unmet.

 

For example, a mage casting a 40 active Firebolt spell has a base penalty of -4. He is wearing studded leather armor with an Enc penalty of -1 for a total of -5. However if the character is bound and cannot gesture (a requirement for Essence magic) the casting penalty is -8.

 

While this may seem harsh, I also provide a lot of circumstances whereby a caster can gain bonuses to the casting roll as well. Extra Time of course. Expendible Foci. Complementary Skill rolls (Spell Mastery skill). Skill Levels of course. Celestial factors. Terrestrial factors, etc.

 

I also allow the purchase of Penalty Skill Levels for the purpose of reducing the Spell Casting penalty. These are limited however and are usually kept to +5 PSL or less.

 

The kicker is this: I have a spell failure table that I roll on when a spell is failed by a certain amount. The higher rolled on the dice, the worse the effect generally speaking. The penalty to the spell roll is then added to the Spell Failure making such failure spectacular, so mages have to be careful how risky the spells they routinely cast are.

[Urlord]

NuSoardGraphite,

 

It sounds like your campaign magic system was inspired by RoleMaster.  Did you make a FH version of "Lay Healing"?  If so, I would love to see it as I am trying to duplicate something like it for my campaign.I don't want to hijack bigdamnhero's thread, so you could PM me if you want to share.

 

Thank,

[bigdamnhero]

Lot's of great ideas - thanks gang!

 

Variable Limitation with a limited field of variables allowed has actually worked pretty well for me in the past.   This might not work as well if your players are really unfamiliar with the system though.

 

I'd also suggest limiting what limitations can fulfill the variable to 2 or three things that can be traded off, in order to make the whole think easier to run.

 

You could also have only certain things be flexible with certain other things. (Take more than one Variable Limitation)

 

Example : You can trade casting time and endurance cost, and you can trade incantations and gestures.. But you can't trade extra time for gestures.   

That would definitely work, but I'm looking for something a little more simple & streamlined, especially since if it's going to apply to all casters. I do like the idea of limiting what can be traded off and what can't.

 

Let's see...a 40pt MP with Requires A Skill Roll (-1/2) and another -1 in Limitations costs 16 PR. Changing that to -1 worth of Variable Limitations (-1/2) and keeping the RSR raises the cost to 20; cost of slots is unchanged. So if I wanted to make it a 4-point Talent, that would wash out about right, right?

 

I got thinking of using the Power (Magic) skill. Every step earlier on the time chart, relevance of the foci, or whatever the limitation the char is attempting to overcome will make a cumulative -2.

That's along the lines of what I'm thinking of, tho I was thinking only -1 rather than -2. Would you charge for that, or just House Rule it for free?

 

I did something sort of similar in a low magic campaign a few years back, but basically how I set it up was every spell had a Side Effect Limitation on it so that for every other limitation "ignored" by the caster he/she took X pts of Body damage (non-resistible) with the max damage being equal to the END of casting the spell. It worked out pretty well as it made the players think about how desperately they needed to cast the spell.

Nice idea. I don't think it would fit with this campaign, but I like the concept.

 

I have some talents built that let players ignore common limitations on spells up to a certain power level (like incantations on up to 50 active points).  Magic items that do that are pretty cool too: I don't have to concentrate to cast my spells any more!

How much do you charge for those Talents? I do love the idea of making it a magic item power!

 

I have two suggestions.

1) Instead of imposing the Incantations, Gestures, etc. Limitations, use Increased END Cost: X10 in Certain Circumstances, and define the circumstances as failing to use the incantations, gestures, extra time, etc. At that high an END cost, the mage is very likely to be burning STUN for END.

2) Instead of imposing the Incantations, Gestures, etc. Limitations, use Extreme Side Effects, automatic (so, whether the spell succeeds or not, whether the magic roll fails or not) "whenever the character does some specific act" and define the specific act as failing to use the incantations, gestures, extra time, etc. You can scale it so that the more "shortcuts" taken, the worse the Side Effects. Of course, you could also drop the "automatic" aspect and then the Side Effects hit only on a failed roll.

Both good ideas.

 

A Talent called Spell Mastery (Cost 5 CP) which allows a spell caster to ignore limitations for additional difficulty to the casting roll.  The only limitation that cannot be ignored is Requires a Skill Roll.

That's the way I'm leaning at the moment.

 

For my campaign, it is not a Talent, it is something every magic user can do. Depending on the type of magic (basic types are Essence, Channeling and Mentalism). Each one has a different set of limitations but they all have Requires a skill roll and total up to -1 in Limitations.

I use the penalty of -1 per 10 active to the casting roll. In addidtion to this, I also subtract the Encumbrance penalty from worn armor.


If a caster cannot fulfill any of his casting requirements such as Incantation, Gestures, Concentration or Focus, the caster may still attempt the spell, but at -3 additional penalty per requirement unmet.

For example, a mage casting a 40 active Firebolt spell has a base penalty of -4. He is wearing studded leather armor with an Enc penalty of -1 for a total of -5. However if the character is bound and cannot gesture (a requirement for Essence magic) the casting penalty is -8.

While this may seem harsh, I also provide a lot of circumstances whereby a caster can gain bonuses to the casting roll as well. Extra Time of course. Expendible Foci. Complementary Skill rolls (Spell Mastery skill). Skill Levels of course. Celestial factors. Terrestrial factors, etc.

I also allow the purchase of Penalty Skill Levels for the purpose of reducing the Spell Casting penalty. These are limited however and are usually kept to +5 PSL or less.

The kicker is this: I have a spell failure table that I roll on when a spell is failed by a certain amount. The higher rolled on the dice, the worse the effect generally speaking. The penalty to the spell roll is then added to the Spell Failure making such failure spectacular, so mages have to be careful how risky the spells they routinely cast are.

I like it, tho -3 does seem a bit steep for what I'm looking for.

 

I do like the bonuses side, tho it seems like it could lead to a point where spells cast out of combat always succeed because the caster can always afford to stack a ton of bonuses on top?

 

Re allowing PSLs to reduce the Skill Roll - how is that any different from just buying up the Skill Roll itself?

 

I *love* the idea of a spell failure table! I had been thinking of making Side Effects another Limitation that can't be overcome, but making the result something variable is kindof awesome. My players don't know it yet, but they all hate you!

[ghost-angel]

One possibility is to come up with 2-4 Spell Limitations (one's that are specific to the idea of casting a Spell, not part of the Reasoning From Effect aspect of the build);

 

Requires A Roll

Focii

Incantations

Gestures

Time

etc...

 

At the base level, the Skill Roll is -0 to cast. Removing one Spell Limitation imposes a -1 per 10 AP penalty to the Roll. Removing two Spell Limitations a -2 per 10 AP. And so on (with enough luck and a high enough roll, you could possibly cast without any Spell Limitations at all...)

 

It has the benefit of being simple, easily written down on character sheets, and doesn't require too much extra work on the part of anyone involved.

[ghost-angel]

 

Re allowing PSLs to reduce the Skill Roll - how is that any different from just buying up the Skill Roll itself?

 

The PSLs would have to be defined to only overcome penalties, if you don't incur any penalties, the PSLs aren't going to increase your base roll.

[bigdamnhero]

One possibility is to come up with 2-4 Spell Limitations (one's that are specific to the idea of casting a Spell, not part of the Reasoning From Effect aspect of the build);

...

At the base level, the Skill Roll is -0 to cast. Removing one Spell Limitation imposes a -1 per 10 AP penalty to the Roll. Removing two Spell Limitations a -2 per 10 AP. And so on (with enough luck and a high enough roll, you could possibly cast without any Spell Limitations at all...)

That's the direction I'm leaning, tho I'm thinking penalties for overcoming Limitations would be in addition to the standard -1/10 AP penalty.

 

The PSLs would have to be defined to only overcome penalties, if you don't incur any penalties, the PSLs aren't going to increase your base roll.

True `dat. Tho if all Rolls have the -1/10 AP penalty, then the difference becomes somewhat moot?

[ghost-angel]

Only if you can use a PSL to overcome the Base RSR Penalty and not something more specific like "Removing Limitations Penalties"; which, by the rules, is how they should be bought, PSLs are designed for very specific penalties on a roll, not any penalty (otherwise, yes, there would be no difference between them and buying the Roll up).

[NuSoardGraphite]

Only if you can use a PSL to overcome the Base RSR Penalty and not something more specific like "Removing Limitations Penalties"; which, by the rules, is how they should be bought, PSLs are designed for very specific penalties on a roll, not any penalty (otherwise, yes, there would be no difference between them and buying the Roll up).

Correct. The way I use them, they can only remove external penalties such as those from being prevented from fulfilling a limitation or the ENC penalty of armor. They cannot remove the base penalty from the Active Point bonus. Full skill levels that actually increase the skill roll are necessary for that.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Lot's of great ideas - thanks gang!

 

That would definitely work, but I'm looking for something a little more simple & streamlined, especially since if it's going to apply to all casters. I do like the idea of limiting what can be traded off and what can't.

 

Let's see...a 40pt MP with Requires A Skill Roll (-1/2) and another -1 in Limitations costs 16 PR. Changing that to -1 worth of Variable Limitations (-1/2) and keeping the RSR raises the cost to 20; cost of slots is unchanged. So if I wanted to make it a 4-point Talent, that would wash out about right, right?

 

That's along the lines of what I'm thinking of, tho I was thinking only -1 rather than -2. Would you charge for that, or just House Rule it for free?

 

Nice idea. I don't think it would fit with this campaign, but I like the concept.

 

How much do you charge for those Talents? I do love the idea of making it a magic item power!

 

Both good ideas.

 

That's the way I'm leaning at the moment.

 

I like it, tho -3 does seem a bit steep for what I'm looking for.

 

I do like the bonuses side, tho it seems like it could lead to a point where spells cast out of combat always succeed because the caster can always afford to stack a ton of bonuses on top?

 

Re allowing PSLs to reduce the Skill Roll - how is that any different from just buying up the Skill Roll itself?

 

I *love* the idea of a spell failure table! I had been thinking of making Side Effects another Limitation that can't be overcome, but making the result something variable is kindof awesome. My players don't know it yet, but they all hate you!

 

The bonuses quickly wear out. The extra time bonuses become inconvenient after the 5 minute mark, which is only a +3 bonus assuming the default casting time is a full phase. One cannot control Celestial or Terrestrial factors and expendible foci are quickly used up and can never provide more than a +3 bonus in my campaign depending on rarity and potency. Of course, permanent foci can be created or acquired that give regular bonuses, but these cost the character points to own. (Skill levels on a Focus....wands or wizards staves or magic enhancing jewelry)

 

Perhaps soon I will post my Spell Failure chart and run it through the gauntlet to see what you guys think.