If magic cost full price...

[UltraRob]

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...

 

Or, it might vary depending on the type of magic user.

 

Really, "Spell" as a limitation should come with some limitations built into it.

 

As well, this really isn't any different than the 1/3rd thing...Think about it, the "Spell" limitation at -2 means the Active Points are divided by....wait for it.....3! As a minimum limitation of -2, plus the typical -2 worth of regular limitations on top of it, you're going to end up dividing the Active Points by 5 in most cases...30AP powers would cost 5pts, 60AP powers would cost 12pts....90Ap powers would cost 18pts..........Wait....that might actually work quite well when I think about it.... Have to give this one some more thought...

 

Rob

[Lupus]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Or, it might vary depending on the type of magic user.

 

Really, "Spell" as a limitation should come with some limitations built into it.

 

As well, this really isn't any different than the 1/3rd thing...Think about it, the "Spell" limitation at -2 means the Active Points are divided by....wait for it.....3! As a minimum limitation of -2, plus the typical -2 worth of regular limitations on top of it, you're going to end up dividing the Active Points by 5 in most cases...30AP powers would cost 5pts, 60AP powers would cost 12pts....90Ap powers would cost 18pts..........Wait....that might actually work quite well when I think about it.... Have to give this one some more thought...

 

Rob

*grins* It's quite deceptively simple, isn't it? I have no idea how it'd actually work out, though. I haven't playtested it, and won't get the chance in the near future.

[Blue Jogger]

-2 Spell vs 1/3 using Math

 

Ok, a typical 15 Active Point minor cantrip spell might have -1/4 incantation, -1/4 gestures, and maybe a -1/2 Requires a Skill Roll. In any case, -1 of limitations is not unreasonable to dig up.

Normally, that's 7 points.

1/3 price, that's 2 points.

-2 Spell Limitation instead, that's 4 points.

 

Now, your typical 2D6 RKA Explode Fireball (45 Active), and say -2 of Limitations.

Normally, that's 15 points.

1/3 price, that's 5 points.

-2 Spell Limitation instead, that's 9 points.

 

Where it runs into problems (IMHO) is the 105 Active Point spell with only a -1 limitation.

Normally, that's 52 points.

1/3 price, that's 17 points.

-2 Spell Limitation instead, 26 points.

[UltraRob]

Re: -2 Spell vs 1/3 using Math

 

Where it runs into problems (IMHO) is the 105 Active Point spell with only a -1 limitation.

Normally, that's 52 points.

1/3 price, that's 17 points.

-2 Spell Limitation instead, 26 points.

 

So actually, it seems to work almost perfectly. A 105pt spell should NOT be cheap under any circumstances, we don't want our players throwing them around casually. (Unless you DO want it, then that's another story...) 26pts means they will only be able to afford a few of these babies, maybe 2 tops, and that sounds pretty good to me.

 

Rob

[Killer Shrike]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

If you are concerned about MUs having an unfair discount in points, consider that warriors need only pay for a familiarity and then buy a weapon and some armor with money for their abilities, and then just dump their points into stats and CSLs.

 

 

However, if you want to put everyone on the same playing field, try going to a FAM based Magic System, where a Magic User buys a FAM with a Spell Effect. Go with a set list of Spells with Active Point caps in the same ball park as the Real Cost of weapons when looked at as Killing Attacks.

 

 

The Totemic Shamanism and Piedragemas styles on my website are of this type.

[CourtFool]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

If you are concerned about MUs having an unfair discount in points' date=' consider that warriors need only pay for a familiarity and then buy a weapon and some armor with money for their abilities, and then just dump their points into stats and CSLs.[/quote']

 

Thanks, Killer Shrike, but I still disagree with this argument.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Thanks' date=' Killer Shrike, but I still disagree with this argument.[/quote']

Not questioning your judgement, but Im interested in your reasoning just from the standpoint of seeing all sides of an argument.

[CourtFool]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Not questioning your judgement' date=' but Im interested in your reasoning just from the standpoint of seeing all sides of an argument.[/quote']

 

Question it all you want. You will just be wrong.

 

My standpoint is, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, that nothing stops the user of magic from picking up a sword and armor.

 

"Oh, but the warrior will be able to put more points into skill using that sword."

 

Well, duh. That is the way it should be. If you spread yourself out, you are not going to be as good in any one area. Making magic cheap allows the user of magic to be nearly as combat effective as the warrior with a sword and launch his fireball when he is ready to stop toying with his opponent.

 

I think, and I warn you being a llama...what the hell do I know, that a lot of the arguments for cheap magic here come as baggage from D&D where wizards are more powerful. At least at higher levels. It seems to me that even the designers realized this problem to some extent and tried to balance it with a lot of arbitrary limits (once per day, no armor, weak weapon selection, weak hit points). Many of these same limitations show up in Fantasy Hero which also rubs me the wrong way, but that is best saved for another thread.

 

This was not meant as an attack on anyone that posted on a thread. Killer Shrike just opened it up for my opinion such as it is. Try not to do that again...'K?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

So your saying that the reason you dont think its somewhat balanced is because a Magic User can be good at both HtH and Magic use?

 

But if that were true, the reverse would seem to be true as well.

 

What that viewpoint doesnt take into account is that it takes more than a FAM to make a warrior good. Characteristics, CSLs, and any other salient abilities all contribute to making a competant warrior.

 

 

 

Take two baseline characters for instance and only allow them 2 character points to make an extreme example. One buys Common Melee Weapons Fam for 2 points and uses starting gp to acquire a Common Melee weapon of some sort.

 

The other character spends their 2 points on something conducive to Magic Use. Of course 2 points wont buy much of anything in the way of a Magic System really, so for all intents and purposes the second character is hosed. They could acquire a weapon as well, but unless they spend 1 of the 2 points they are saving for an eventual Magic System they will suffer nonproficiency penalties.

 

They get into a fight; the 1st character will almost certainly win.

 

 

So, at the low end, the fighter obviously has an edge, pun intended.

 

 

 

Now scale the points up a bit. Lets say both characters have spent 50 points on improving their respective professions.

 

The 1st character, our intrepid fighter, has spent 50 points on stats and CSLs. Lets say 30 points for +10 DEX (and +1 SPD figured, as well as +4 OCV and DCV), 10 points for +5 CON, 10 points for +10 STR (and a net gain of +1 PD, +1 ED, +2 REC, +8 STUN, +2" of leap, and quadrupled lifting STR). Their OCV & DCV is now a 7. They will hit more often and be hit less. They go sooner in initiative, and have an extra action. They can take more STUN, are staggered less often, and thus die less easily. They can carry more without encumbrance, they can use a weapon with a higher STR Min, and they can wear heavier armor without penalty.

 

The 2nd character, our stalwart Magic User, has 52 points available, since he didnt spend his 1st 2 points from the previous example. Depending on what Magic System is in use, he needs to spend this 52 points on a variety of things. He might need a Magic Skill Roll for some systems, and a pretty decent one at that. Some Systems require multiple Skills, but we'll go with best case scenario so lets say he spends 9 points on a single Skill for a Base Roll + 3. That leaves him with 43 points. If his magic System uses a Multipower he could buy a 30 point reserve and 12 points in slots (about 10 to 12 slots). He uses the extra point to buy a FAM with a weapon, but with a STR of 10 its a small one.

 

Those 10 to 12 spells had better be good (and with only 30 Active Points, they cant be THAT good), because the 1st character is going to kick the 2nd characters hiney if they arent. So buying a weapon FAM and picking up a weaponsdoes almost nothing for the 2nd character because they dont have enough secondary abilities to back it up. Even if they can wear mundane armor, the character is so weak that they will be encumbered by anything worth wearing.

 

And even if their spells are fantastic, the MU is still going to have a hard time hitting the Fighter due to the difference in the CV's, and the Fighter has an extra action.

 

 

And so on. As the points escalate, the Magic User eventually catches up and surpasses the non Magic User (mostly because CHAR Max is reached by the non-MU and the over efficient gains from that aspect are slowed down), but usually just in terms of flexibility and utility. An equal pointed non Magic User still has the freedom to spend their points on things that make them competitive.

 

 

 

Personally, I think the Turakian divide by 3 is too much of a discount, but Magic Systems that force the wielder to pay full price without the benefit of Power Frameworks are too weak compared to non Magic Users who get their weapons and armor for money rather than points in my experience, particularly at lower point ranges.

 

YMMV obviously, but personally if I showed up to play in a GM's FH campaign and they indicated that the only Magic System available required the full RC to be paid for all Spells with no Frameworks allowed, I'd smile politely and play a non MU, secure in the knowledge that I would be better off to do so.

 

 

On the other hand, if you made characters pay the RC of Weapons & Equipment, then I could see your point.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Also: what about the holy warrior who takes a divine ability to enhance his sword' date=' 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?[/quote']

I do see it as a problem. It essentially gives a big discount to a single SFX (Magic Spells), which is unfair.

 

 

I really dont like the divide by 3 "Turakian" Magic. It blows every framework out of the water, and there's no way for a non-spellcaster to compete with that, really, and the longer play progresses the more apparant it would become since each 1 xp the MU gets translates into 3 character points worth of magic if they choose to spend it on boosting their power.

 

 

The divide by 3 could be made to work in some settings, but it would take a more even handed discounting for non-Spells. However, its incorporation as the defacto official Magic System (being the Magic System for the default Fantasy Setting) is somewhat off putting to me.

[arcady]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

I am looking for input from others who have had experience with magic costing full price.

I ran a game of Fantasy Hero in the first edition.

 

It was full price then, and there tended to be spells that had a limitation value of 6, 7, 8 or more... often burden down by all manner of extreme and impractical limitations.

[arcady]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

I think' date=' and I warn you being a llama...what the hell do [b']I[/b] know, that a lot of the arguments for cheap magic here come as baggage from D&D where wizards are more powerful. At least at higher levels.

In DnD 3.x, the mages are only more powerful if the fighters don't know how to build effective feat chains.

 

I once played an archer fighter who at level 11 was dishing out a reliable 40+ points of damage every round, with a decent AC, high hit points, and a +23 to hit bonus.

 

That number bring my 'average' roll and not my max, and not subject to a save or magic resistance, I outclassed every mage thrown at me, and every mage the other players tried to build.

 

Generally, in most DnD games I've played, the fighters and rogues stay more powerful throughout the levels - but the mages gain the ability to do area attacks and wierd effects.

 

Built by people who know how to 'game' the system, rogues will always outclass fighters who will always outclass mages. Clerics I'm a little less sure on... Built by average players clerics will outclass, but I'm not convinced the real number-bunnies won't still find my scale holds for them.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Question it all you want. You will just be wrong.

 

My standpoint is, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, that nothing stops the user of magic from picking up a sword and armor.

 

"Oh, but the warrior will be able to put more points into skill using that sword."

 

Well, duh. That is the way it should be. If you spread yourself out, you are not going to be as good in any one area. Making magic cheap allows the user of magic to be nearly as combat effective as the warrior with a sword and launch his fireball when he is ready to stop toying with his opponent.

 

Assuming I agree this is a problem, why wouldn't the solution be to charge full points for magic and require "equipment users" to pay points for their equipment? You want a KA, pay the freight.

 

You want a magical KA? Pay the freight. Buy "familiarity - fireball" and buy a fireball. To reduce the cost, you can put limitations like Gestures, Incantations, Extra Time, Extra END, etc. on it.

 

You want a sword KA? Pay the freight. Buy "familiarity - sword" and buy a sword. To reduce the cost, you can put limitations like Real Weapon and OAF on it.

 

Presently, whether the system favours those with inherent abilities or those using equipment depends on how powerful the equipment is allowed to be, how readily available it is, and how easy it is for characters to obtain the resources to purchase it. If everyone pays points for all abilities, the playing field is levelled.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Presently' date=' whether the system favours those with inherent abilities or those using equipment depends on how powerful the equipment is allowed to be, how readily available it is, and how easy it is for characters to obtain the resources to purchase it.[/quote']

 

Something to keep in mind is the type of game you want to run. In a game where magicians are powers unto themselves, much like they are in the Ars Magica game, I think it's completely reasonable for magicians to simply have more points than the sword-swingers. You do not expect Superman to be built on the same number of points as is Jimmie Olsen. Why would you expect Magnamaximus the Mage to be built on the same number of points as Brunk the Slayer? I think most genre fiction falls into this category.

 

On the other hand, if what you want is a game where magicians are less powerful, or at the very least less efficient, than their swordbearing counterparts, then by all means, give magicians the same number of points as the grunts. The result will be that the magician will have to spend dozens of points to accomplish what the grunt can do by spending a handful points, at most. The magician will be marginalized, and the grunts will take center stage. There are not a lot of examples of this sort of setting in the source material, but there are a few. It's somewhat uncommon.

 

If you want the spellslingers and swordswingers balanced, and approximately equal in their abilitires, then make them both pay points for everything, just like in a superhero game. Arrow and armor, or venemous ray and ward of binding, it all costs basically the same. This style of setting is probably as common as the mage-as-superhero style.

 

So it really just depends on what kind of game you want to run.

[Kraven Kor]

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.

 

Fighter pays a few points for weapon proficiency, a penalty skill to offset DCV penalties from armor, and then most of his "combat points" are used to buy skill levels, dex, defense manuever, martial arts...

 

Mage pays for talent/skill to use magic, his spells, and maybe has enough left over for a skill level or two, depending on how you set it up.

 

In my campaign, wizards and fighters are relatively equal at dealing out damage, the wizards generally doing less to several targets while the fighters go one at a time, but it balances due to how they were "made" to buy their skills and abilities to come up with a functional character. This balance was mostly what I was considering when I designed my magic rules and assisted on characters.

[Markdoc]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

>>>Something to keep in mind is the type of game you want to run. In a game where magicians are powers unto themselves, much like they are in the Ars Magica game, I think it's completely reasonable for magicians to simply have more points than the sword-swingers. You do not expect Superman to be built on the same number of points as is Jimmie Olsen. Why would you expect Magnamaximus the Mage to be built on the same number of points as Brunk the Slayer? I think most genre fiction falls into this category.<<<

 

Yeah, but as any successful GM can tell you, fiction ain't gaming. I take your point that the system needs to be tailored to the game you want to run, but most players would set up a howl if you told them that certain player "classes" would get more points than others "just because". The only real reason that balance in a game is important is because of the players. In theory, good players should be able to deal with differing power levels, but I have never seen it lead to a happy conclusion.

 

 

>>>On the other hand, if what you want is a game where magicians are less powerful, or at the very least less efficient, than their swordbearing counterparts, then by all means, give magicians the same number of points as the grunts. The result will be that the magician will have to spend dozens of points to accomplish what the grunt can do by spending a handful points, at most. The magician will be marginalized, and the grunts will take center stage. There are not a lot of examples of this sort of setting in the source material, but there are a few. It's somewhat uncommon.<<<

 

I'm not meaning to be rude, but have you ever run a FH game? In games where mages and fighter types have the same amount of points, I have lost track of the number of doughty warriors who have been entangled, blinded, sent flying kilometres into the sky or simply torn apart by summoned demons. In no way are mages marginalized by having the same points as fighter types: my hardest task as a GM was keeping the mages from dominating play, to the point where my current magic systems heavily limit magic-use in combat. Depending on the game setting and house rules the balance can shift one way or the other, but it is certainly not general rule. It's true that the fighter can do more with their free weapons than mages, due to superior physical stat.s, but that 10 points the fighter spends on one more point of speed can buy the wizard a summoning spell that gives him a demon that is faster, stronger and does more harm or a spell that teleports his enemy a kilometer into the sky...

 

>>>If you want the spellslingers and swordswingers balanced, and approximately equal in their abilitires, then make them both pay points for everything, just like in a superhero game. Arrow and armor, or venemous ray and ward of binding, it all costs basically the same. This style of setting is probably as common as the mage-as-superhero style.<<<

 

This is how we ran our first FH games and while I admit it balances the characters, it adds some odd variance from the usual fantasy tropes as regards acquiring stuff.

 

cheers, Mark

[Eosin]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Having the benifit of playing in a game with some tweaked PCs - magic at full cost is FUBAR. Under that system, I never played a mage or had one played in a game that I ran. Instead, what I played was a brutal warrior who could also unload a cheap trick or two that allowed me to wax the floor with a strictly non-magical fighter type.

 

FREX:

"The Sword-Saint" Spells = AID to DEX (Battle Trance).

"The Battlelord" Spells = AID to STR + Force Field

"The Jedi" = Forget the mind stuff let me unload the Defensive Maneuver, Combat Sence, Increased Running, & Superhuman SPD.

 

ETC.... All of these use fighter builds that sacrafice a single Overall in exchange for a huge boost to overall combat.

 

On the otherhand, with the 0.33 cost multiplier - the group has two wizards that while still out mached by the fighter types can hold their own and even shine under the right occassion.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

In no way are mages marginalized by having the same points as fighter types: my hardest task as a GM was keeping the mages from dominating play' date=' to the point where my current magic systems heavily limit magic-use in combat. Depending on the game setting and [b']HOUSE RULES[/b]...

 

Bingo: if you give mages and non-mages the same points, and make them adhere to the same rules, but don't require non-mages to pay for weapons and equipment, the non-mages dominate. Period. The only way the situation you describe could take place is if you gave the mages more points or you imposed a house rule which swung the pendulum in the mages' favor.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

most players would set up a howl if you told them that certain player "classes" would get more points than others "just because".

 

You seem to think that having 150 points is somehow different from having 50 points and being given a 66% discount on what you can buy with it.

[lazarus]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Thought:

 

Have a points pool for starting equipment. Something like 100/100/50. Then, allow Mages to be able to read spells out of spellbooks or scrolls... but have the lim of Extra Time (2 Phases). This would more-or-less balance it out properly, I think.

 

Laz doesn't yet have FH, and is still thinking about his world, but will do something like that.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

I respect Markdocs pov, but again my own experiences differ widely from his as far as the disparity btwn MUs and non-MUs.

 

 

Ive run many different FH campaigns at various power levels (typically higher however, like in the 250-350 range), and my experience has been quite the opposite. Non-MU's overall are better than MU's. The MU's balance by having the ability to spike with their spells, but the non-MUs are sustained and consistent.

 

It's like the difference between sustained strength and jerk strength.

 

 

In my current setting of San Dora I have over a dozen completely different Magic Systems in play, all balanced in different ways. So far seven different kinds have seen play. Guess what? While the MU's are powerful and not to be discounted, so are the non-MU's. Nobody felt like there was an unfair disparity in power levels.

 

None of my Systems are as discounted as the Turakian divide by three however; I personally think that's a bit too much. Compared to an Elemental Control, the closest official construct in the game, its much much better.

[arcady]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

I'm squarely in the camp of 'full costs for spells is too much'.

 

The 1/3 costing of Turakian Age is a viable option, but the skill requirements there might still leave a mage weak.

 

If we compare the sample characters in the back of the Fantasy Hero book - remove 20 points from the mage in there (because he was built on 170 while the others were all built on 150), and he's clearly the weak link. Of course just how weak is a matter of what you remove - you could cut raw power and make it obvious to make a point, or you could cut the flavor to make a counter point, but you'd probably come up short and end up making a third point: mages have to sacrifice flavor just to be on or close to on par with the others.

 

 

For Fahla, my mages will be working with VPPs and skill rolls. There are four VPPs, one for each element, but an unlimited number of skills - which each skill reflecting a style of magic one might know: tantric, battle, ritual, blood-magic, and so on...

 

I'll probably do the VPPs in a manner similar to 'The Gift' from FH. So it's a divide by 5 system. In addition, I'll let it be pushed and combined with other mages.

 

But the cost of entry is high - in Fahla if you don't manifest magic by puberty you never will, and the practice is dangerous, all spells will have side effects and a high END cost. The end result will need to be a system that easily kills mages with low skill rolls, but allows the high skill rolled mages to thrive. The 'university' at Coinic (one of the largest cities in the world) estimates nine out of ten mages die in their teens to their own magic - as a result, they restrict their teachings to slaves officially owned by the royal family.

 

The mages can get powerful, but have a lot of complications on that power.

 

I've still got to figure that out, but I think it will work.

 

 

 

In my setting you won't have the warriors who walk around with one or two spells to boost them up - being a mage is a life long dedication.

 

You need to consider balance, but I think genre is even more important. With fantasy you're simulating a genre.

 

Think of why you're not playing DnD. A lot of people leave DnD because it's just too game and not enough story or simulation. DnD simulates DnD, not fantasy - it has a logic that falls apart even if play balance is roughly preserved, and a lot of the limits put in to ensure this are the factors that drive so many of us away.

 

Now that you've landed on Fantasy Hero, the last thing you should do is recreate the issues that led you away from DnD.

 

Make sure your magic system makes sense from a genre perspective. Play balance is important, but don't sacrifice genre to it.

[Xiawarr]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

Assuming I agree this is a problem, why wouldn't the solution be to charge full points for magic and require "equipment users" to pay points for their equipment? You want a KA, pay the freight.

 

You want a magical KA? Pay the freight. Buy "familiarity - fireball" and buy a fireball. To reduce the cost, you can put limitations like Gestures, Incantations, Extra Time, Extra END, etc. on it.

 

You want a sword KA? Pay the freight. Buy "familiarity - sword" and buy a sword. To reduce the cost, you can put limitations like Real Weapon and OAF on it.

 

Presently, whether the system favours those with inherent abilities or those using equipment depends on how powerful the equipment is allowed to be, how readily available it is, and how easy it is for characters to obtain the resources to purchase it. If everyone pays points for all abilities, the playing field is levelled.

 

I agree.

 

I've always had trouble with allowing the purchase of abilities (e.g. weapons and armor) with money! The Hero System is based on points for a reason. Making everyone pay points for everything (although crossing over into the "superheroic" style of campaign) solves the balance of power arguments. Everyone pays points for everything. Then, if you do allow for things like multipowers (and I do!) then allow it for everyone. Wizards would have "spellbook" multipowers; fighters would have "martial feats" multipowers.

 

As I have stated on a previous (old) thread, I don't like bean counting in my RPGs. So, I prefer an abstract house rule that combines the "Money" Perk with a 3d6 die roll and a pre-constructed table for equipment availability; rather than actual handing out gold and the "post-adventure shopping spree" (hand me the equipment list... now, let's see a masterwork sword costs...). Do a search on my handle, if you want to track down the house rule.

[Xiawarr]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

>>>>>>If you want the spellslingers and swordswingers balanced, and approximately equal in their abilitires, then make them both pay points for everything, just like in a superhero game. Arrow and armor, or venemous ray and ward of binding, it all costs basically the same. This style of setting is probably as common as the mage-as-superhero style.<<<

 

This is how we ran our first FH games and while I admit it balances the characters, it adds some odd variance from the usual fantasy tropes as regards acquiring stuff.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Mark, I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one that has come to that same conclusion.

[UltraRob]

Re: If magic cost full price...

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306&highlight=xiawarr