If magic cost full price...

[CourtFool]

For my next Fantasy Hero campaign I am seriously considering making magic cost full price. Racial abilities cost full price. If I allow psionics, I am certainly not going to allow them in a Power Framework or get a 1/3 discount. Magical Items will cost full price. It just seems unfair that magic should be so cheap in comparison.

 

For those of you who run or play in a campaign where magic is full cost I would like to hear some of your experiences. Did mages seem woefully under-powered? Did this kill the 'Fantasy' feel of the campaign? Did magic-loving players break out in open revolt? TIA

[Lupus]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

For my next Fantasy Hero campaign I am seriously considering making magic cost full price. Racial abilities cost full price. If I allow psionics, I am certainly not going to allow them in a Power Framework or get a 1/3 discount. Magical Items will cost full price. It just seems unfair that magic should be so cheap in comparison.

 

For those of you who run or play in a campaign where magic is full cost I would like to hear some of your experiences. Did mages seem woefully under-powered? Did this kill the 'Fantasy' feel of the campaign? Did magic-loving players break out in open revolt? TIA

You definitely end up with fewer spells. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. I was definitely annoyed when I saw that mages got a break under most spell systems, but no mention was made of, say, paladin powers getting a points break... I don't see any reason for mages to get a break other than 'they're mages.' That doesn't sound right to me.

[Gunrunner]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Here is the reason as I see it: The justification for a cost break in a Multipower is that you are limited to how many powers you can use simultaneously and powers usually share the same limitations. The justification for a cost break in an EC is that all powers come from the same special effect/source and are above a certain minimum point cost. The magic system presented in FH Grimoire does not fit into any type of framework presented in 5th ED. yet it shares one restriction from each of the Multipower and Elemental Control framework: magic spells share most of their limitations (gestures, incantations, etc.) and they share the same special effect and source. So the 1/3 cost break seems to an attempt to create a unique power framework that cannot be represented by a Multipower or Elemental Control alone.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

If mages pay full price with no frameworks, what you tend to end up with is starting mages buying magic skill, a spell to replace armor and a spell to provide an attack. Non-combat spells become pretty rare, and mages take a long time to build any real versatility.

 

Considering our Warrior will have his 5/5 suit of armor, his 1 1/2d6 HKA weapon and likely a 1 to 1 1/2d6 RKA missile weapon, and spend about 4 points on WF.

 

The wizard needs to spend a lot of points just to equal what the warrior purchases with cash - a decent Magic Skill will cost him more than the warrior spent (5 poiints for skill w/ +1 to the roll). Or buy up his STR so he can use the same things the warrior can, which leads to the concern of stat similarity.

 

I view allowing the wizard some point breaks on his spells (be it 1/3 real cost, framework access or what have you) as a tradeoff for physical stats and point-free equipment enjoyed by the warrior types.

 

But the true test is in the game. Ask your players what each will play, assuming magic has no cost breaks. If you get a decent mix, run with it. If they all say "Warrior", "Rogue", etc. (with maybe a small amount of magic abilities for flavour), consider whether you wnat your game to have spellcasters, and what you need to do so they can be competetive.

[CourtFool]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

So the 1/3 cost break seems to an attempt to create a unique power framework that cannot be represented by a Multipower or Elemental Control alone.

 

Thank you for your response, Gunrunner. I am not questioning why the Turakian Age uses the 1/3 cost. I simply disagree with it. I am looking for input from others who have had experience with magic costing full price.

[trechriron]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

The current game I am playing in the GM started using magic at full price. I later convinced him to reduce the cost of spells. Mages were essentially more expensive warriors with a flare. In this I agree with Hugh. We have rules that you must take a talent for magic. I would go further and give them some similar requirements like martial arts. They must belong to a school or have a master, they must possess the skill, and they must possess a KS of the art.

 

I think the big kicker here is not "fairness" which is really subjective. It is about flavor and what you want in your game. If you like mages to be specialized and fairly combat oriented, then the full price thing is not a bad go. You will more than likely NOT be getting well rounded mages, but if that is not what you're shooting for, then no problem.

 

FH's magic section steps you through the magic system creation process. It is fantastic. You should start from scratch and follow that process and then tailor the rules to fit your idea. I would not be as concerned with the "fairness" of reduced cost spells, in the grand scheme, in my experience, those HKA/RKA attacks for gold are a nice counter-point.

 

Just my two cents...

[Greatwyrm]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

I have to agree with techriron here. Everything in HERO is easier if you start with the concept then look at the rules. Think about how you want magic to work in plain language before you even pick up FREd.

[Brett]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

In the comparison of CP cost and Money cost for both warriors and wizards, keep in mind that nearly all the basic spell write-ups in FHG require a OAF Expendable spell component (usually a fairly expensive one).

 

The way that the default Turakian Age magic system works, the cost break is probably necessary. You have to buy a skill for each arcana that you want to use (about a dozen or so). Most combat spells have an Active Point penalty of -5 to -7, so these skills need to be fairly high or you need magic skill levels. Then you still need to pay 1/3 the cost of the spell.

 

I guess that it depends on what restrictions you are going to put on magic. Are you going to have requirements similar to the Turakian Age magic without the cost break, or can magic users build their spells (or whatever) like superpowers?

 

If a character can bypass the Requires a Skill Roll or make that skill roll based on a single magic skill, many points are freed up for buying spells at full cost.

 

Brett

[trechriron]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

In the comparison of CP cost and Money cost for both warriors and wizards, keep in mind that nearly all the basic spell write-ups in FHG require a OAF Expendable spell component (usually a fairly expensive one)...

 

 

Wow. Good points all around that I had not considered. The OAF thing combined with multiple skills and spell limitation requirements does make the 1/3 cost balance out with a lest restrictive magic system with full cost spells.

 

It still essentially makes magic more expensive than being a warrior, but intelligent spell choices could close that gap by giving the mage abilities that simply cannot be accomplished with a sword...

 

Thanks Brett.

[UltraRob]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Just to play devil's advocate here, there is a valid point in having your players pay full cost for spells. As noted, players will end up with fewer and more combat-oriented spells, but at the same time those are the spells that they will need to survive anyways in most FH games.

So what you'll end up with is a early to midranked Magic User who knows a few (presumably) combat spells and maybe one or two other things when the campaign starts off. As the game progresses, he can learn/buy other minor spells and variants of the old ones to develop more fully as a Magic User.

Yes, at first he might seem like an "expensive warrior with more flash", but in the long run he'll end up being more veratile and having a more definite focus and evolution than he might as a character with a shotgun of low-cost spells.

As well, when you start throwing in heavy limitations, like the aforementioned Expendible Foci, you start getting costs that are comperable to even 1/3 ratio spell costs anyways. When I require a minimum of -2 worth of limitations on spells in a game world, then I will get spells costing in the 5-30 range at most, and probably lower than that. With 150pt characters, that doesn't seem too bad to me.

 

Rob

[Nuke]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Thank you for your response' date=' Gunrunner. I am not questioning [b']why[/b] the Turakian Age uses the 1/3 cost. I simply disagree with it. I am looking for input from others who have had experience with magic costing full price.

 

We pay full price for magic in our campaign. Sure, the mages may start out weaker, but they end up more powerful in the end. Warriors hit brick walls with weapon strength maxes whereas a mage just buys up his attack. Warriors can only sweep so many foes where the mage fireballs.

 

Most fantasy games use this concept where mages start a little bit underpowered and then pass up later. I consider this the norm.

 

We have plenty of variety in our spells from our casters. With a good -3 in limitations being typical (gestures, incantations, focus, side effect, skill roll, extra time), spells aren't all that expensive?

[dbsousa]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

When I ran a Fantasy Hero 4th ed game (That took place 500 years after a 2nd Ed D&D game I ran years earlier) I used Full price spells with at least -1 in Lims. The results, If I remember, were as follows:

 

1: Low active point spells

2: Few spells per character

3: Not many Advantages on any given spell.

 

If I were doing it in 5th, I would allow Elemental Controls for one reason: It makes Dispel Magic truly harrowing.

[Rick]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Hey, no one I've seen ever complains about wizards getting tons of spells (and in turn POWER) in D&D when fighters get relativly little (even W/feats). Full price, as I see it, represents a world were magic tends to be subtle or extremely rare. To play a game like L5R or Forgotten realms or even starwars (W/the Force) magic is common, for the PC's anyway, and costs should reflect this.

 

Where as in D&D level progression favors the Wizard, in Hero point progression favors the fighter, I don't pay for my Sword, armor or anything not a skill, perk, attribute or talent where as the wizard pays for almost everything on his/her character sheet.

 

I know the original post didn't ask for this but I've seen this opinion elsewhere and I just felt the need to finally post a counter opinion (even if it was unsolicated).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

We pay full price for magic in our campaign. Sure' date=' the mages may start out weaker, but they end up more powerful in the end. Warriors hit brick walls with weapon strength maxes whereas a mage just buys up his attack. Warriors can only sweep so many foes where the mage fireballs.[/quote']

 

There's a few comments above that make this basic point - I'll pick this one as representative. My question is this: do the warriors just stop spending their xp? If not, it has to go somewhere making the warrior more powerful, or more well rounded. Maybe they buy Deadly Blow abilities. Perhaps they buy KA's with Trigger to simulate multiple sword swings in a phase without Sweep penalties, or Area Effect KA's to simulate firing multiple arrows to hit multiple targets. Penalty skill levels, anyone? 8 PSL's for hit locations means all my shots are to the head.

 

Or do they just by more and more skill levels that are less and less useful since they always hit at max damage and get a 15 DCV anyway?

[CourtFool]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

It is a good point that I need to start with the concept of how magic works first and then do the number crunching.

 

In my opinion the 'warrior gets his sword for free' argument is weak. There is no restriction on the wizard grabbing armor and sword as well. Spells as attacks are far more versitile than swords so I do not feel the comparison is correct.

 

In the last two Fantasy Hero campaigns I ran every PC was a mage. I allowed magic to be bought in Multipowers and I believed this to be a major contributing factor to why the group was so magic heavy.

 

I would like to allow a variety of magics from wild talents to learning specific words and rituals to focus mana. Therefore, the usual limitations (gestures, incantations) are not standard. There would be many different ways to use magic. I hope this explains a little better.

[Outsider]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

While the "casters start weak, then surpass warriors" model is the norm, you run into a problem if your individual games dont really run long enough for the switch to happen. Also, there is the problem that, until you reach that middle ground, your players running casters will feel like window dressing, and after it, your warriors will. Though the warriors, by that time, will often have grown in stature/renown/fame to the point where their power is less personal and more political.

 

 

Anyway... The main types of casters I've run into as far as full points for spells games fall into 3 types :

 

1) The Enhanced Melee : A character with one or two "spells" that greatly enhance (unbalance) their melee abilities, that the player will try to get by the GM without actual regular Skill Rolls being required ("Activation roll is the same thing!"). Typical "spells" of this sort will typically be things A) like a very slow loss Aid to STR that is cast (sometimes twice, to get max effect) every morning, at lunch, and so on, or Personal Immunity Darkness, so the character's opponent's OCV and DCV are often greatly reduced. Admittedly, this particular type of character isnt discouraged by making the spells cheaper.

 

2) The Hand Sitter : The character made by a player who realizes that it is point inefficient to try to compete with non-casters in combat, and so makes a character who's spells all, or almost all focus on out of combat uses. Nothing really wrong with this, but the player ends up not really doing much when there is a combat. Occasionally, his out of combat spells are so well chosen and effective, that the other players end up largely sitting on their hands when there isnt a combat. Admittedly on this type, making the spells cheaper might alleviate the combat hand sitting by the caster (who can now afford combat spells) it wont really help the hand sitting by the rest of the group out of combat (since the caster may have even more flexibility in non combat situations)

 

3) The One Trick Pony : The character only has points for a few spells, so he makes a character who only does a few things, but does them very powerfully. Given that most GMs rely on more than just a lack of real points to limit their caster's abilities, and the OTP will only be happy if he gets to be significantly more effective than anyone else when it comes to his one trick, these types are usually less than common.

[Outsider]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

It is a good point that I need to start with the concept of how magic works first and then do the number crunching.

 

In my opinion the 'warrior gets his sword for free' argument is weak. There is no restriction on the wizard grabbing armor and sword as well. Spells as attacks are far more versitile than swords so I do not feel the comparison is correct.

 

In the last two Fantasy Hero campaigns I ran every PC was a mage. I allowed magic to be bought in Multipowers and I believed this to be a major contributing factor to why the group was so magic heavy.

 

I would like to allow a variety of magics from wild talents to learning specific words and rituals to focus mana. Therefore, the usual limitations (gestures, incantations) are not standard. There would be many different ways to use magic. I hope this explains a little better.

 

 

The problem with the mage picking up a sword is that, without spending points in other areas (like skill levels, stats, and such) it just isnt equivalent. Most GMs also restrict caster's ability to wear armor as a 'genre' consideration.

[Ternaugh]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

My last FH campaign world used full price spells. To be fair, though, the campaign started many years ago, with 4th ed rules. Wizards were powerful in combat, as would be expected, but were also required to have quite a bit of noncombat skills and magic. Warriors tended to be well-trained, and deadly. And in one incarnation of the gaming group (about 10 years ago!), political maneuvering became paramount (thanks to one of the players, Jason Vester, later of "Broken Kingdoms" fame). The last mutation resulted in a high fantasy/clockpunk environment, with characters receiving an extra 25 points for character development (to become 100 Base/75 Disads). Warriors put this to good use with extra skill levels and such, while almost all mages added straight to spells (typical mages had 50 points or so in spells).

 

To be honest with you, though, the average power level of most spells was below typical FHG entries. Mages had to be more than just a "magical shotgun" toward enemies. So, for example, the Earth Mage in the group also had spells that allowed shaping stone for building or sculpting, while the Storm Mage was able to influence local weather patterns to help farmers.

 

Of course, YMMV,

JoeG

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

The problem with the mage picking up a sword is that' date=' without spending points in other areas (like skill levels, stats, and such) it just isnt equivalent. Most GMs also restrict caster's ability to wear armor as a 'genre' consideration.[/quote']

 

Exactly - the problem with "The wizard can pick up the same items" becomes the fact that warriors are optimized to use these items. Mages can't be optimized for weapon and armor use and buy their spells (at full or reduced costs) and related skills - they have to make a choice.

 

In the campaign I'm currently playing in, we're allowing magic via multipowers. My wizard has an 8 STR. If I had to pay full points for each spell, I doubt I would be running a spellcaster at all, and he sure wouldn't have an 8 STR - he'd need a higher STR to carry at least light armor, a shield and some cbackup weaponry because spells just wouldn't be reliable enough.

[Rick]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Well, the thing stopping the wizard from picking up a sword and armor is CONCEPT, and then even a Battle mage will still run into issues with skill points as he has to start spending point on CSL, Wf, and PSL. Then he has to spend points on a grip of KS, power skills, maybe talents, and CSL for his magic. Spending full points on magic is why Mako's Character in Conan couldn't fight and had very slow acting magic, powerful perhaps but very limited.

[Lupus]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Basically, I can't ever see anyone getting a consensus between magic and non-magic, since both sides see it their own way and go 'hey, the other side's a lot more powerful.' cf: the endless fighter vs wizard debate on D&D forums.

 

My argument in D&D is always thus: if the fighter is the combat specialist, and by necessity isn't that great outside of combat, then he should SHINE in combat. The wizard shouldn't expect to be as good as him. PErhaps as good short-term, but not long-term. This is because the wizard has a host of out-of-combat abilities that the fighter lacks. And quite powerful ones. And in D&D, combat isn't all there is, so that /does/ factor into the overall balance level.

 

Now, that doesn't quite apply to HERO, since characters aren't as constrained by 'class'. Everyone can have a bit of magic, and everyone can have a bit of fighting, and everyone can have a bit of non-combat skill stuff. If you try to do too much, you'll suck at everything, but hey. At the same time, I think people should think less about classes when in HERO... the 'wizard' is a character who has forsaken physical abilities to spend points on magic. That's a decision they made, and frankly, I don't see why it should be more points-efficient than any other choice. Of course, someone who spends all their points on combat abilities looks pretty scary, too. But with a 1/3 break, I think you'd quickly look scarier with spells. Basically, with seriously cheap spells, you quickly end up being able to do everything a warrior can, and more. Sure, you have to chant and gesture. But who cares?

 

What about a middle ground - instead of a 1/3 cost, perhaps an extra -2 limitation called 'spell'? That would reduce the cost, but not as much as 1/3 (unless there were no other limitations on the spell). What would people feel about it then?

 

Also: what about the holy warrior who takes a divine ability to enhance his sword, or a healing effect? Or the priest with turn undead? What should happen to their costs? As far as FH goes (I don't have Turakian Age), there's no discussion about reducing their costs... do people see this as a problem?

[Nuke]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

There's a few comments above that make this basic point - I'll pick this one as representative. My question is this: do the warriors just stop spending their xp? If not, it has to go somewhere making the warrior more powerful, or more well rounded. Maybe they buy Deadly Blow abilities. Perhaps they buy KA's with Trigger to simulate multiple sword swings in a phase without Sweep penalties, or Area Effect KA's to simulate firing multiple arrows to hit multiple targets. Penalty skill levels, anyone? 8 PSL's for hit locations means all my shots are to the head.

 

Or do they just by more and more skill levels that are less and less useful since they always hit at max damage and get a 15 DCV anyway?

 

Responses are always hard to deal with on these posts, and I broke my own rule of replying without explaining how our campaign works. I play in a high fantasy campaign (although I'd really call it medium fantasy). We are based on 100+75 points (yes, some of you will gasp), but everybody in the world is scaled accordingly.

 

Our GM did some stuff similar (yet very different) to Killer Shrike, and has created several wonderful warrior and mage progression paths. This limits both classes on what they can do and when. For example, a newbie mage does not know how to mage a "triggered" spell, but an advanced warrior can do a "weapon storm". Overall, the progression has proven to be very balanced between the "classes", and the classes aren't mutually exclusive. My character has followed the path of a priest and a warrior.

 

The classes have abilities that are limited by gaining certain knowledge skills. This gives the GM good control over when the players gain powers, and gives wonderful roleplaying opportunities for the characters to seek out and learn new stuff. I know that Turakian has a lot of these things as well, I think our campaigns just implement it in a completely different way.

[Markdoc]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

We ran a number of games where magic was at full price, and we didn't lack for mages. It is fair to say that the fighters who specialised were pretty awesome in combat, but the *most* effective fighters were the "holy warrior" types, who had a small store of mostly cheap, battle magics (Flash is a particularly nasty one, though the price change in FREd has somewhat improved that). Pure mages still used armour and weapons, but it's true thay were not as effective in HTH as fighters - the equipment was a backup, and their other powers in combat (mind control, illusions, area effect missile spells, etc) kept them more than competitive in the body-count stakes.

 

One intersting thing I noted is that if you use full price spells, successful mages tended to have a reasonable number of cheap but useful spells (a few inches of flight, a no-sleep spell, see in the dark spell, and so on) and then one or two zorchers - a couple of badass fire spells, or a big illusion or mind control spell, which was their main schtick. Where you get into problems with the full cost approach is if you try to play DnD with Hero, where your mage has a whole range of powerful spells: you end up with a bunch of underpowered spells, none of which are very useful.

 

However these days I allow multipowers, to give mages more versatility (I like mages to have a lot of spells) - the trade off is that I limit magic heavily so that most of it is not very useful in combat. I want a sort of sword and sorcery feel, where fighting is mostly left to fighters. To be fair I also allow multipowers for "cool feats" for non-mages: this is also limited by constraints of "realism" so that these powers don't tread on the mages toes. That seems to work well. Personally, I would never allow the Turakian age 1/3 cost approach: even multipowers need to be carefully watched for their unbalancing effect - this essentially gives you the best points of a multipower and an elemental control, without any of the limitations. If you look at the sample characters supplied in the book, the mage is far and away the most powerful character in the party, even taking out his kick-ass magical staff.

 

However, it seems to me that those who argue that fighters have the edge because they get "free stuff" usually also add the rider that "but we just don't allow mages to use weapons or armour". In that case, giving the mages some kind of price break would be justified.

 

cheers, Mark

[Blue Jogger]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

What about a middle ground - instead of a 1/3 cost, perhaps an extra -2 limitation called 'spell'? That would reduce the cost, but not as much as 1/3 (unless there were no other limitations on the spell). What would people feel about it then?

 

I like it! I think it fixes the problem with the expensive spells being too cheap under 1/3 rule since they're the ones loaded down with limitations.

[Outsider]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Or you could make thesize of the "Spell" limitation proportional to the percentage of the mage's total points are spent on spells...