5th & 6th: the Spell Limitation

[Wardsman]

There has been some ink spilt on these forums about this. Some of it I have seen.

But not enough discussion as to the pros and cons of using it.

 

Ok recap this limitation seems to prevent a lot combat maneuvers with powers being used with spells. 

Spreading the attack, Varying the output , Multiple power attacks etc. With mages having to buy combat maneuvers with spells if the GM allows it.

 

Detractors simply state that it should be assumed as campaign rules with no bonus.

There are couple assumptions built into this as I see this.

1. Non mages can't do some of those effects in a normal fantasy
2. Non-mages don't have access to magic
3. All spell colleges should have those limits

I generally agree with #1 but it doesn't necessarily follow in an urban fantasy or a campaign where non-mages have access to powers for any reason.

 

#2 not all settings exclude magic from non-mages.

#3 there might very different styles of magic. some where spell limitation fits and some which do not

#4 It may be appropriate to let advanced mages to by off that limitation.

Also in 5th edition anyway there is a lot of talk of letting mages with a power skill magic do tricks or power stunts.

Does it make sense to forbid that in one sense then let do it with a power roll?

 

On the other side, what genre conventions or sense of balance does limiting powers defined as spell in this manner does this promote whether you get a bonus or not?

[eepjr24]

I support the use of the limitation in campaigns where it makes sense. I use it for my FH when there are things like Psionics that are not similarly limited. In my current FH I use a campaign guideline, but do allow the Beam limitation to designate spells that cannot be varied in power at all.

 

- E

[Cantriped]

Personally, I dislike both the Beam and Spell Limitations. I don't use either of them in my own projects and campaigns.

I split Beam into three modifiers:

Does Not Leave Holes (-1/4)

Cannot Be Reduced (-1/4)

Cannot Be Spread (-1/4)

Very few, if any of my power constructs actually take all three of these modifiers.

 

The Spell limitation I do not use in any format, regardless of campaign type. According to CC/FHC spells should be taking the modifier Cannot Be Use With [specific Combat Maneuver], for each of the 11 maneuvers covered by "Spell" (Blazing Away*, Grab By, Haymaker, Hipshot, Hurry*, Move By, Move Through, Multiple Attack, Pulling A Punch, Snap Shot, and Suppression Fire). And as above should be taking Cannot Be Spread (-1/4), and Cannot Be Bounced (-1/4).  *These maneuvers do no exist in CC/FHC.

Admittedly, I do not think Spell should be worth -2 3/4 (the value indicated by my statement above); but neither do I think the -1/2 value given in FH pg 276 is correct either. If I had to I would split the difference at -1 or -1 1/2.

 

The maneuvers system is one of my favorite parts about HERO compared to most of the other games I've played. It is my opinion that applying the restrictions of the Spell modifier without a modifier value is very unfair to spellcasters, and frequently inappropriate to the special effect of the spell being used. A "Burning Hands" like spell for example should certainly be able to be Spread depending upon how it is built. Likewise it is highly cinematic to Multiple Attack or Suppression Fire a "Magic Missile" style spell.

 

In terms of "genre conventions" or "balance" the Spell modifier promotes spellcasters behaving like they do in DnD or Video Games; by forcing them to stand and cast, and preventing them from using their spells as creatively or cinematically as they otherwise could. I do not feel like it reinforces any of the genre conventions of Fantasy seen in cinema and literature, but too be fair I watch a lot of cartoons (especially anime). Spellcasters in animated fantasy stories frequently behave more like super-mystics. When they don't I feel like it is because of the Gestures, Incantations, and (most importantly) Concentration required by their particular spells, not because of a meta-mechanic of the magic system.

[MrKinister]

I don't think there there are any actual pros or cons. I think it will very much depend on your particular flavor of fantasy. In my games, I allow most maneuvers that make (dramatic) sense in a game.

 

As for spells not being able to make some maneuvers, that depends on the type of maneuver. Many maneuvers in the "Spell" list are actually done by characters, not spells.

 

For example, if a wizard has a very fast flying spell, and they can charge their staff with mystic power for a good wallop, then, by all means they can fly by a hapless orc and smack them over the head. Presto, you just did a Move-By. The spells had nothing to do with it. It was the character that did the maneuver (although the spells helped). Same with Move-Throughs, Grab-Bys, etc, all depend on "what" is doing the action.

 

I also consider some tropes on the genre: any maneuvers that are based on fully automatic fire (as in machine guns) are usually unknown in my fantasy games. And since I always require some modicum of END to be spend, autofire in my fantasy games has a very limited viability because its costs too much.

 

Bouncing things off walls only works if your spell manifestation allows it. For example, in my games, if you are using Fire spells, then they cannot, by default, bounce off things because fire doesn't bounce. But if you were to throw a physical rock, it could conceivably bounce. I also usually define energy attack spells as "blasts", meaning they are usually about 1 to 1 1/2 foot in diameter, so they do not "beam". You can get that as a separate disadvantage, if you wanted to. But most players don't, mostly because they want to be able to blow holes in walls. It's the convenience, you see. =)

 

But overall, I think the fantasy flavor is up to you. =)

[Wardsman]

I didn't know about multi power attacks. Just read that for the first time. Doesn't seem to fit flavour for me.

Also be hard for my Arcane schools since I use RSR for Arcane. Divine is different matter. That may set divine apart.

I'll have to think on that.

 

Haymakers for other attacks than punch , Hmmm  I'm trying to think if w used that in 4th. Too long ago.

Could be useful. Don't have an opinion.

 

Tend to agree with MrKinister on Autofire yet Magic Missile is a thing.

I could see bouncing a fireball of stone or metal but finger of fire? not so sure.

 

I really don't see the point of stopping them from dialing a power down.

 

I do want magic to feel more like magic and not a super power.

But some of those tricks might not be a deal breaker.

[Cantriped]

This more than a little bit of a tangent, but In my opinion the best ways to prevent a spell from feeling like a superpower is by describing it flavorfully, and by having a consistent "casting procedure" for given schools or lineages of magic...

 

As many editions of Fantasy HERO have pointed out, calling a spell Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or Dispel Magic isn't very flavorful. Meanwhile "Chandra's Explosion", "The Izzet Sky-Splitter", or "Ixidor's Denial" sound much better, and can do a lot to flesh out setting and inform the player's as to its history without you having to monologue or write long, dry descriptions half the players won't read anyway. Even if they never get to meet Chandra or Ixidor in person.

 

The description of a spell's manifestation can also do much to create the feel of magic. For example: In many fantasy RPG settings (such as the Iron Kingdoms, and later in Golarion), and almost every fantasy anime (especially since Full-Metal Alchemist), the act spellcasting is accompanied by the manifestation of magic circles containing glyphs, runes, and incomprehensible symbols in the caster's hands, at their feet, or near the spell's target.

 

Cinematically, the Incantations modifier does the most to make a spell feel like magic, and less like a superpower. Lots of superheroes strike poses when using their powers (because it is a comic book trope that makes them easier to redraw over and over), but very few superheroes shout gibberish at their opponents before blasting them (because word bubbles take up art-space and aren't very dynamic). As proof, almost all of the mystic superheroes use incantations (although few of them are actually required to).

Although lots of anime characters (magical and otherwise) like to shout their attack names, the writers frequently use English rather than Japanese for their incantations. To an American audience this is just cliché, but to the Japanese audience it was intended for I imagine it makes those powers feel very exotic. I just wish they reversed the trend when dubbing these series (having the attack names shouted in Japanese, Spanish, French, or some other language instead of remaining in English).

[MrKinister]

I have to admit that many of these tropes of conventional fantasy spells are things that were defined by Dungeons and Dragons, or at least popularized by it. I have to admit that I am quite used to them, so the convention sticks and I don't question it. However, I have seen examples of magic I enjoy that are different from those tropes. I have one example:

 

Haku (the river dragon) in "Spirited Away": there is a scene where he is escaping from I forget what, but as he's running all he does is move his hand and stuff happens (he opens and closes a door). Very simple magic, but done in a very stressful situation, with great mastery and skill. No incantations, no grand gestures, not even special effects. He merely exercises his will and he achieves his goal. I enjoyed that feel of magic for a while, but it's expensive to build spells like that for a fantasy hero game, so most schools need to dial down the cost by piling on the disadvantages or the power frameworks. Nowadays, I would reserve that kind of magic as the pinnacle of magic in my games, where spell casters have a group of spells that are fast and easy, but so subtle in their execution that they seem like a natural extension of themselves.

 

But that is a different kind of magic flavor as well. =)

 

 

As an aside, I am currently working a grimoire of spells for a group called "Academics". They have "fixed" spells, or formulas, meaning that once you learn them, they cannot be altered. You increase your power by learning the next more power version, which requires having learned the previous less powerful version. The costs are low, because not being able to change the spell is a good disadvantage, and all such spells are bought into a multipower (which serves as the game power balancer: you can't have a spell with more active points than your multipower) into fixed slots.

 

This drawback (spells being immutable) is balanced by the fact that you don't have a "Requires A Skill Roll" disadvantage. The spell formulas are "tried and true" and never fail. So, here's where the above effect comes in. Master wizards can research new versions of their spells, rebuilding their spell books with spells that are designed to have very few disadvantages, effectively creating a feel of wizards that only may need to "wave their hands" to make a spell happen. Like in the above example. =)

 

(As a point of cultural flavor, different academic schools across various nations have different philosophies on how they build spells: some favor physical expressions (gestures, incantations, concentration, etc), some favor risks (side effects), some favor different devices (foci: wands, staves, rings, ect), some favor charges or components. The schools maintain a level of "friendly" competition that keeps their adherents "loyal" to each school. A bit political.)

 

Academics are balanced by "Shapers", which are the D&D equivalent of sorcerers. Shapers cast spells by what ever way they wish. They don't use any power frameworks, so the disadvantages are pretty strong, but they have the freedom to alter the spell's parameters, do maneuvers with them, cast them at lesser power levels, haymaker them, or do research to alter their structure. Where an academic wizard may have to learn 3 or 4 spells, a Shaper only learns one. The balance point for Shapers is that they DO require a "Skill Roll", so have a magic skill they have to pay for, and have an actual chance of spell failure.

 

I am slightly off topic, but I only bring this up in because I still feel it will be up to you to establish the flavor of your campaign's magic. You can go with the already know "high magic" D&D concept, or you can play to any level or feel you desire. It's pretty much open territory as I see it.

[Wardsman]

Not at all MrK.

 I've been delving into Harns magic system a Hero translations of Harn magic.

The idea is a low level spell that at higher levels does more stuff is how that seems to work.

I also been looking at ideas from 5th Edition Ultimate skill for both research and boosts due to good skill rolls.

 

Harry Culpans Hero Harn notes, which I snagged before his site went down, mages have a talent (Arcane Discipline) and spells have a rank. 

A mage can learn spell rank -1 spells equal to his talent level. Doesn't pay points just takes research time. It is an interesting system.

 

Now he did use the spell limitation and allowed Combat maneuvers to be bought with spells.

Which fits the Harn setting.

 

And Cantriped I don't see anything wrong with buying of some limitations at higher levers.

The spell rank system I'm eyeing treats A spell with a lot limitations as a lower level of the same same spell with less limitations.

 

What does a haymaker with a spell look like? And should that be allowed if spells must take extra phase or extra segment anyway?

[Cantriped]

What does a haymaker with a spell look like? And should that be allowed if spells must take extra phase or extra segment anyway?

In many anime that use the "magic circle" manifestation of magic, a haymaker is represented by "stacking" multiple magic circles (usually 3 to 5 instead of just 1). Ostensibly this works like stacking lenses to focus light, and requires more time and greater concentration to pull off than simply focusing your "mana" through a single "magic circle" would.

The description of the Gather Power class feature of the Kineticist (Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures), feels very much like a kind of haymaker (It also screams Dragon Ball Z rip-off, but that is neither here nor there). It involves producing a large and visible elemental manifestation in a 7-8m radius around the character, and can take up to a phase and a half.

In one of the Superheroic western cartoons I saw once (I forget which one now, but I think Wonder Woman was in it), a super-mystic villain performed a haymaker firebolt. Normally his firebolts were small, quickly cast one handed, and flung much like baseballs, but this one he charged for several seconds, holding the sphere of fire over his head with both hands as it grew, and I think he was incanting... but I'm not sure because he wasn't on camera for most of it (there was too much other, more interesting fighting and dialogue going on).

 

I am inclined to say that you cannot Haymaker spells which already take Extra Time beyond Full Phase, but nothing in the FHC description of Extra Time or Haymaker actually prohibits it.

[Cantriped]

As an aside, I am currently working a grimoire of spells for a group called "Academics".

As someone who has spent a fair bit of the last decade working on one magic system or another for HERO, I really like the magic system you are developing. It looks interesting, sounds reasonable and feels self-consistent. My only advise for potentially improving the system you outlined would be to have Shapers use a smaller VPP (maximum of 3/4 of the APs of a Multipower taken by a character of the same point level) which requires a Magic Skill Roll and Variable Limitations (between -1/2 and -1) on all slots, in addition to requiring a lots of Extra Time separate Inventor Skill Roll (at an even higher penalty) to change slots. A looted Academic's Spellbook might give a shaper a bonus to their Inventor roll when recreating the effects of spells contained within.

[Wardsman]

As an aside, I am currently working a grimoire of spells for a group called "Academics". They have "fixed" spells, or formulas, meaning that once you learn them, they cannot be altered. You increase your power by learning the next more power version, which requires having learned the previous less powerful version. The costs are low, because not being able to change the spell is a good disadvantage, and all such spells are bought into a multipower (which serves as the game power balancer: you can't have a spell with more active points than your multipower) into fixed slots.

 

This drawback (spells being immutable) is balanced by the fact that you don't have a "Requires A Skill Roll" disadvantage. The spell formulas are "tried and true" and never fail. So, here's where the above effect comes in. Master wizards can research new versions of their spells, rebuilding their spell books with spells that are designed to have very few disadvantages, effectively creating a feel of wizards that only may need to "wave their hands" to make a spell happen. Like in the above example. =)

 

(As a point of cultural flavor, different academic schools across various nations have different philosophies on how they build spells: some favor physical expressions (gestures, incantations, concentration, etc), some favor risks (side effects), some favor different devices (foci: wands, staves, rings, ect), some favor charges or components. The schools maintain a level of "friendly" competition that keeps their adherents "loyal" to each school. A bit political.)

 

Academics are balanced by "Shapers", which are the D&D equivalent of sorcerers. Shapers cast spells by what ever way they wish. They don't use any power frameworks, so the disadvantages are pretty strong, but they have the freedom to alter the spell's parameters, do maneuvers with them, cast them at lesser power levels, haymaker them, or do research to alter their structure. Where an academic wizard may have to learn 3 or 4 spells, a Shaper only learns one. The balance point for Shapers is that they DO require a "Skill Roll", so have a magic skill they have to pay for, and have an actual chance of spell failure.

 

I am slightly off topic, but I only bring this up in because I still feel it will be up to you to establish the flavor of your campaign's magic. You can go with the already know "high magic" D&D concept, or you can play to any level or feel you desire. It's pretty much open territory as I see it.

 

I'm shooting for something that is a mix of the two myself . There is formula but there is improve aspects also.

[MrKinister]

Interesting that you bring VPPs up, Cantriped. I didn't mention the third element in this triad, which are the Wilders. These are the mages that use a VPP as a framwork to work their magic. In this game world, they are exceedingly rare, and, because of that, quite often hunted as valuable commodities or treasured sources of new magic knowledge, depending on the moral compass of whoever is doing the hunting at the time. And because of that, they are often living in hiding.

 

The rest of this entry is just to share ideas:

 

The way I envision Shapers, is like freewheeling magic users with great aptitude for magic in general. They typically learn by observation and repetition, not by study. It's more like a craft than a science. It requires a bit of intuition and a lot of natural talent and predisposition. Actually having a copy of an academic spell formula would do little for a shaper, unless said shaper has the academic skills to understand the concepts. Shapers would have to either watch said spells in action, or get a description of it by which it can be visualized. The reason I call them "Shapers" is due to the concept that they can take magic from the environment and "shape" it according to their imagination. Practice makes good, so after a number of tries (read: research), a shaper will have a spell understood and be able to repeat at will. But, again, since this is not a science for them, every time a shaper works to recreate an effect, s/he must take into account the environment, magic in the air, subtle and numerous variables of mystic currents, what they are doing at the moment, what ever they are paying attention to, or perhaps even trying to stay alive in a battle. All of the factors added up account for the skill roll.

 

Now, compare the academics to the shapers, and bring in the wilders. Where academics learn spell formulas like they were written in stone, the shapers practice their spells and have flexibility. Finally, the wilders, with their VPPS, enjoy the greatest freedom of all: they think it, and it happens (as long as they make their rolls). No practice, no learning, just "doing".

[Wardsman]

How do you see the Spell Limitation interacting with the power skill?

 

Might some of the more formulaic textbooks spells be built with it but practitioners who make power skill magic rolls go on to develop versions without it?

[Cantriped]

Now, compare the academics to the shapers, and bring in the wilders. Where academics learn spell formulas like they were written in stone, the shapers practice their spells and have flexibility. Finally, the wilders, with their VPPS, enjoy the greatest freedom of all: they think it, and it happens (as long as they make their rolls). No practice, no learning, just "doing".

Given what you have already stipulated, I don't see any mechanical reason why anyone would want to play a Shaper, or why they would even still exist in your world. Shapers have to pay more for their spells then anybody else (and therefore actually have fewer spells and less flexibility than everyone else). They can't trade spells out like Wilder can, nor can they have the glut of different spells they can rely on to work without fail like an Academic can.

 

I just don't see any advantages compared to the other two, much more efficient/versatile options. In any kind of magical war the Academics would have wiped out the shapers, leaving the Wilders only because they can come up with specifically tailored defenses that give them an edge against academics. They might exist historically, and you can enforce their continued existence by GM fiat, but I don't see any reason as a player why I would put up with being denied access to power-frameworks when there are other options available.

 

Furthermore, your fluff for Wilders and Shapers sounds awfully similar. The only real difference I can discern is in their purchase method, which is a poor way to differentiate a magic system. The people of your world wouldn't know how many points they spent on their magic, or how they are organized on a character sheet, they will only know what can be observed about different kinds of magic users (number of spells, reliability, power, etc). Personally I suggest combining the concepts of Shapers and Wilders... Or rather, attaching all of your Shaper-themed fluff to the Wilder. The Shaper fluff screams VPP to me.

 

However, if you absolutely have to keep the Shaper as distinct from the Wilder, they need a Cost Dividend to help them keep up with the other types of spellcasters (I suggest 1/5th cost). As it stands, an Academic doesn't just have 3-4 spells to the shapers 1, they get ~5 spells for each of the shapers first 2 spells, and ~10 spells for every additional spell the shaper has to purchase outright thereafter. That isn't even considering that Shapers also have to invest in a Skill to even use their spells. Similarly, Wilders may only have two or three spells at once, but they effectively have access to every spell, and will almost never be stuck with the "wrong spell" 

[MrKinister]

Thank you for your observations. I understand your concerns with the differences. All of those ideas are things that have already occurred to me. I am not trying to say that this set of ideas is better than any other, it's just a set of ideas that I happen to like.

 

Differentiation is present in the way the various "types" of magic users appear in the world. About 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 people is trained as an academic spell caster (depending on the region), because all you need to learn academic magic is a basic apprenticeship that lasts about six months. A Shaper is "born", and is actually available as a PC class. Maybe about 1 out of 50 magic users is a Shaper. A Wilder is so rare that it is not a PC class very often. You can roll to play a wilder, but odds are against you. And there are many social complications to playing one.

 

I am not trying to mix max the classes to the most efficient uses of points and methods. I am looking at a series of ideas that I enjoy, and that describe working elements of a world I am creating. Optimization is not necessarily my goal, but I do keep track of power and point balance. It's more story telling and observation. Yes, it does fit the concepts of the two available power frameworks in Hero System 6, and no power framework at all. That part is clearly transparent. The ideas of this "mastery spectrum" I had do seem to fit quite nicely into it.

 

In order to understand the concepts you have to see this in terms of how a person in that world would experience it. There is the classic mage, the Academic. Everyone knows those. They are very common. Then there is the "strange" mage, who works with intuition instead of study, but needs practice and time to learn her spells. Academics wonder how that is possible. Their minds accustomed to the formulas they use, and they can be dogmatically rigid at times. And then there is that rare and almost forgotten legendary individual who can design magic, much like a Shaper, or perhaps an evolution of a Shaper (?), with little effort and even less time.

 

It's not about point efficiency, it is about the rarity, complexity, frequency, and the "wonder of magic" that makes the difference here. That is where my focus plays. It is about roleplaying. =)

 

The idea of a magical war is a possibility, but it would mostly happen between academics, the ones sponsored by nation states, the ones loyal to nation states, and a handful of Shapers, if they chose to fight. But the academics, being the most numerous practitioners, would be the ones filling out the ranks and files of any participating magical support in a military conflict. As it is, they already have the most dominant place in "magical" society.

 

But I digress. These ideas are meant to be taken as different social and interactive roles to play, based on your preference. You can reach great heights with either academic or shaping magic. That's what PCs are for, to break molds. 

[MrKinister]

Cantriped: out of curiosity, how do you structure magic in your games?

[MrKinister]

By the way, Wardsman, I apologize for taking the thread a little off-topic. All I meant to do was to illustrate my opinion that you can use or not use the "spell" limitation to your heart's desire. I personally do not use it in this system I describe. I don't see any cons or pros.

 

However, I do "assume" the following ideas apply to the spells I design in this system, some of which are borrowed from D&D's high magic:

 

- Spells are usually "single target" unless designed with areas in mind. This usually implies that multiple attacks usually do not occur, unless the spell's context and circumstances justify it.

- I have no problem with Haymakers, move-throughs and move-bys, as long as the spell facilitates it. (It's kinda hard to do that if you have to concentrate.)

- You can "beam" your spell as a separate disadvantage, but it is not implied in any spell. I consider "beam" when the spell actually looks like a beam and behaves like one: it's a narrow (maybe 1" wide) stream of magic, intended to hit a very small spot with precision, and so can't quite do the same thing to objects that a regular spell can.

- I agree with no "suppression fire". It is an automatic weapon quality that is hard to recreate. However, given the right special effects, and the right build, I could conceivable see this "suppression fire" maneuver being used as a specific spell, but not necessarily available to every spell. But to be honest, I have yet to either create one, or see anybody using it.

- All the spells I design for this campaign require END.

- I rarely, if ever, see the other maneuvers used with spells. This often has to do with the spell's other disadvantages, like gestures, incantations, or concentration. They tend to make snappy maneuvers hard to apply.

 

Now, power stunts I have never seen, to be entirely honest. The underlying assumption in many of my games has been a spell is a spell, and works just this way. But I do follow your train of thought: if a spell in the right context can use a particular option (a modern urban magic campaign where a machine pistol is enchanted, or perhaps the machine pistol IS the special effect of the spell), I don't see why not. However, I would adjudicate the stunt based on how far from the original spell it intends to go. Some will fit, some will not. But it all depends on the special effects and partly on the spell's mechanical design.

 

Again, I think you may want to experiment with your ideas. Perhaps tell your players that you wish to have some time allowing variations in the system to see how they work. I think your clever players may run with it, and they may surprise you with their ideas. Perhaps not so clever players may feel the tried and true way is to leave the system as they know it, because they may feel more comfortable in a system they know and trust. Or some other result. Your mileage may vary.

 

If you give experiments a try, let me know how they turn out. =)

[Cantriped]

I hold very strong opinions about game design, and I apologize if I was too forceful in my presentation of how I think you should be doing things. I always look at things from the perspective of the player who wants to optimize, because I am the kind of player who wants to optimize my characters. As such you should feel free to take my advise with an appropriately large grain of salt. It is also worth noting that I am biased against Spell-Roll based magic systems because one of my favorite Fantasy HERO characters died mid-campaign specifically because he failed a Spell-Roll at an inopportune moment (It was a Turakian Age campaign using their standard magic system). It soured me for the whole thing.

 

I also apologize for continuing the tangent but...

 

Cantriped: out of curiosity, how do you structure magic in your games?

Mechanically I've designed magic systems that use almost every common design conceit presented in Fantasy HERO. However I've come to the conclusion that structuring an entire magic system on a few hard rules is, in itself, flavorless. Rules such as "all spells are bought seperately but divide costs by 10" or "all spells must cost END, and take Gestures, Incantations, and Concentration" limit my creativity, annoy my players, and create gaps which are hard to fill or have to be hand-waved. So the short answer is that I build any given magic user in the most efficient way possible, and give them whatever modifiers best represent the concept and flavor.

 

Here are some examples of "magic systems" which I have built (in some cases to be played by my players, since I am the "Rules Lawyer" of my group, I built all the characters)

 

In my last champions game, one of my players built a character who was literally summoned from the pages of a storybook by a group of evil cultists. She escaped the cultists and took with her the storybook she was summoned from. In her hands (and to her eyes) it was a Grimoire which always opened to just the spell she needed. To anyone else, it would have functioned as a method of summoning her (or any other character from it) to the storybook's holder. In terms of her magic system, the character had a VPP (60 APs Control) which required access to the Grimoire to change slots, and all slots required Gestures and Incantations. The character rarely used the grimoire though, because she wasn't actually a mage. She was more of a paladin, with magical armor that brought her defenses into mystic brick territory, and a magic sword that gave her the ability to detect the presence of "Evil".

 

In my last Fantasy HERO campaign, I had two players playing magic users:

The first player (who was the same player as the storybook paladin above) was playing a pair of young twin illusionist-gladiators. All of their spells were bought through a 45-point Multipower, All Slots required Gestures, Incantations, Concentration, and a trio of Foci (an amulet and two rings) or suffered reduced effect (-15 APs per foci). Most of the spells were illusions, so "Glamoury Fireball" for example was OMCV vs. DCV, AVAD (Mental or ED, whichever was higher), Does BODY, AoE Explosion, Obvious to Sight, Hearing & Smell, and Did Not Effect Undead Class Minds. Almost all of their defensive and utility spells were "fire-and-forget" so they used Persistent + Time-Limit to remain active even while they used their Multipower to cast other spells.

The second player was playing a master smith who was a partial-incarnation of a smith god. He had density increase and could forge magical shields (and only magical shields). The Density Increase had no special spellcasting modifiers, it was simply a divine power he possessed. His ability to forge magical shields was represented as a VPP with which he bought all of the relevant game elements (a HTH Attack, bonus DCV, magical properties, etc) of any given Magical Shield he crafted. To change slots he had to make an Armorsmithing Roll, or visit one of the many "Griswolds" who worshiped him and kept shields he had crafted on display. All the slots in his VPP required modifiers such a Focus, Gestures and Extra Time to equip, Restrainable, Lockout (other shields), Unified Power (by Shield).

 

For a Heroic Fantasy HERO project I am currently working on I wrote an 800-point master necromancer (as the main villain) who uses True Name magic (she mastered the "True Name of Bone"). Most of her spells are contained in a 90 APs Multipower with Incantations on all slots, and OMCV vs. DCV (+0) on all of her attack spells. She has a few powers that had to be purchased outside of the Multipower, such as a Mind Link with up to 1000 Animated Skeletons (which she uses to issue tasks to the Animated Skeletons she animates or ​commands​). She also has a few Wonderous Items she "made" for herself, including a Bone Scythe, Skeletal Platemail, etc.

Her apprentices aren't nearly as powerful as she is, and are more or less traditional spellcasters. The master necromancer has kept the True Name to herself, but taught them similar spells. They only have a 30 point multipower; All Slots take Gestures, Incantations, and Restrainable. They have weaker versions of almost all of the same spells. Just like their master they have a Mind-Link purchased outside the multipower, except they can only link to 250 ​Animated Skeletons.​ They also have a Bone Sickle they've "made themselves" as a Wonderous Item.

[MrKinister]

Interesting. I can see why you would be somewhat upset at a spell roll. To each their own. =)

 

Do notice though, that Shapers have no restrictions to their spell designs other than the spell roll. They can build their magic to any theme or idea, by what ever tools and abilities they wish to bring to bear. You can have shapers who are elementalists, dark mages, mentalists, rogues, body transformation masters, nature magicians (druids?), water casters, martial masters, you name it. Shapers do happen to have that freedom. It was designed to be in stark contrast to the academics, whose spells, once created, never change.

 

I like the character summoned from a book concept. Certainly quite doable. I think it would have been interesting to witness your game.

 

Now, I don't have too many strong opinions on how a magic system is supposed to work. I don't work towards mix maxing or extreme optimization of the system. I like a flavorful character who has skills and details that make him unique.

 

On another note, the spell system I am creating is something that is present so the world can have an existing spell system when new players join the game. I don't actually force the system on anyone, but it makes for a soft landing if you don't want to spend too much time coming up with your own spells. I think this may come from yet again another D&D trope: "the spell system written for the game is the only one you can use". Not necessarily true in Hero System. I am glad you had good players that were able to create a magic structure for themselves. That is actually rare where I am at. New players have the typical uphill curve to learn the system, and some players just don't want to bother. Having experienced and capable players is a great fortune. =)