Armor Spell Failure

[Icel]

If I want spell casters in my game to suffer a spell faliure chance when wearing armor, I would I do that?

 

I tried something like this:

Armor Spell Failure: ; Activation Roll 8- (-2) for up to 30 Active Points of Wizardry (-20 Active Points); Limited Power Only If Caster Is Wearing Armor (-1/2)

 

But it isn't good. Why? Because you can't reward a player for wearing armor when he shouldn't, and this method reduce his spell point cost by -13.

[CourtFool]

D&D Badness

 

I think you are better off house rulling something along the lines of -1 to Magic Roll per 2 points of DEF or whatever ratio you feel is appropriate. Of course this assumes your magic system requires a Magic Roll.

 

You could also house rule an activation cost based on DEF without allowing the players to take the limitation on their spells.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: D&D Badness

 

I'd house rule it either as a penalty to the magic skill roll, or as an acivatioon roll of (say) 16 less 1 per DEF of Armor worn, creating a sliding scale. Thus, wearking 1 DEF armor, your magic activates on a 15-, right on up to an 8- wearing 8 DEF plate. You could add an additional modifier for shield use (maybe -1 for small, -2 for medium, -3 for large) further impeding the ability of an armored knight to succeed with a spell.

 

You could also consider some mitigators. For example, this may be considered a property of "real armor". This provides the out of armor which lacks that limitation not impeding magic rolls. Another possibility is a specific Talent which reduces the penalty to the activation roll, perhaps with the restruction that, if you';re wearing armor, the best you can do is get a 16- activation roll.

[UltraRob]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

If you're feeling mean, you can make it a "side effects" roll in instead, say the energy causes a heat flash inside the armour if they fail their spell roll while wearing it. They're channeling energy and it superheats the air in between the skin and armour because the armour can't breath properly. Say, 1D6 per 1Def normal damage.

 

See how much armour they wear!

 

Rob

[Icel]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

Thanks for al your replays, I need to do some thinking about it, but Hugh Neilson idea look about right.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/GeneralSpellRestrictions.shtml#Armor%20and%20Magic%20Restrictions

[CourtFool]

I'd rep you again, but...

 

I think Killer Shrike's web site should be a sticky on the Fantasy Hero genre forum.

 

Just sayin' is all.

[EternalGM]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

I impose a Magic Roll penalty equal to their encumbrance penalty

[Cantriped]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

I plan on using a Penalty to Magic skill rolls equal to -1/5kg of armor worn when casting spells with the gestures limitation. I decided to base it on weight rather then Def or any of those other factors because I'm using Hit Locations and will be making Sectional armor very common. (in that the party will rarely find a full suit of anything, pieces will be missing or broken, etc.) the same goes for clothing though as well so if a character is stupid enough to wear that 5kg heavy Robe of cool lookin magelyness they had better expect a penalty. though I like the encumberance penalty as well, I think I'll do both

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

I plan on using a Penalty to Magic skill rolls equal to -1/5kg of armor worn when casting spells with the gestures limitation. I decided to base it on weight rather then Def or any of those other factors because I'm using Hit Locations and will be making Sectional armor very common. (in that the party will rarely find a full suit of anything' date=' pieces will be missing or broken, etc.) the same goes for clothing though as well so if a character is stupid enough to wear that 5kg heavy Robe of cool lookin magelyness they had better expect a penalty. though I like the encumberance penalty as well, I think I'll do both [/quote']

 

 

So you're saying you think it fair that a spellcaster with a 20 STR be equally penalized by 5 kg as a spellcaster with 1 STR?

[Onyxclaw]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

So you're saying you think it fair that a spellcaster with a 20 STR be equally penalized by 5 kg as a spellcaster with 1 STR?

 

for DnD only the level of defense and the light/medium/heavy armour classmattered. not str.... so if you wanted to be true to form then I guess so.

 

Especially since it was more skill related and the armour interfearing with the magic, rather than weighing th user down...unless I'm mistaken. You could also reduce the chance of faliure as you leveled.

 

Personally I always hated this rule.

 

It drove me and my halfdragon necromancer crazy.

[Hida Tsuzua]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

While I know this is different from the way you're trying to do casting spells in armor, here's how I'm doing it in my High Fantasy game. Basically I've divided armor into 4 types (Cloth, Leather, Mail and Plate) and allow the disadvantage "Only in X armor type or lighter" at -1/4 (Leather or below) and -1/2 (Cloth Only). This lets the players decide how much armor they'll be willing to trade for more powers. It also lets you do clerics and other well-armored spellcasters.

 

As for doing it by random chance, the major thing is why does armor affect casting? If it's because it's hard to move in, you might want to have it be a DEX check or otherwise based off any armor penalties the armor grants. If it's somehow due to metal, that has implications of its own. If your system is based off activation or skill rolls, just saying armor affects those rolls as well would work quite well as armor has "Side Effect- Affects Magic Activation Rolls by X -0."

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

for DnD only the level of defense and the light/medium/heavy armour classmattered. not str.... so if you wanted to be true to form then I guess so.

 

Especially since it was more skill related and the armour interfearing with the magic, rather than weighing th user down...unless I'm mistaken. You could also reduce the chance of faliure as you leveled.

 

Personally I always hated this rule.

 

It drove me and my halfdragon necromancer crazy.

 

In DnD 3e you mean. In previous versions of DnD you couldnt wear armor at all. I provide means to model both in the document I linked to above.

 

Regardless, the poster I was questioning wasn't talking about DnD, he was talking about his own method for presumably his own setting.

 

 

Personally it just strikes me as somewhat illogical to base it on a flat amount of kilograms since it is very artificially arbitrary. I'm curious if that is really what he meant.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/GeneralSpellRestrictions.shtml#Armor%20and%20Magic%20Restrictions

 

Armor and Magic Restrictions

In some games it might be appropriate to restrict the wearing of Armor for Magic Users at a GM's discretion. Following are various ways to do so.

Casting and Armor

As attacks are most typically of the Killing variety in Fantasy HERO, Armor takes on a good deal of significance. Since Armor and Magic both are major concerns for play balance, unsprisingly how they relate to one another is correspondingly also a major concern. If Magic Users can run around in magical plate mail whipping out Magical Effects, non Magic Users will have a correspondingly tougher time of it.

One approach towards handling this is to simply not allow Magic Users with largely offensive Magical Effect lists to wear any Armor at all, and many games have taken this tact over the years. Alternately, you might allow Armor to Magic Users, but with the opportunity for the activation of Magical Effects to be disrupted.

NO ARMOR AT ALL OPTION

This option is not in effect in my campaigns

If the GM has deemed that physical Armor and Magic Use simply dont mix, affected Magic Users have a 100% failure rate of activating Magical Effects while wearing Armor. They may try to activate a Magical Effect if they wish for some reason, but it will always fizzle out, wasting the Effect.

Affected Magic Users may take a Physical Limitation: May Not Activate Magical Effects While Wearing Armor for -15 points. Alternately a GM may determine that such a Disadvantage is a campaign groundrule and not worth any points. Check with your GM first on this subject if playing an Arcane Magic User.

AD&D 2e Conversion

If converting to the HERO System from AD&D 2e and attempting to remain close to the source material, then this restriction should be in place.

ARMOR BUT WITH PENALTIES OPTIONS

Allowing Magic Users to activate Magical Effects while wearing Armor, but with an opportunity cost such as chance of failure, Character Point cost, or a reduction in the Active Points of Magical Effects is a fair alternative to an arbitrary "NO ARMOR" ruling. There are several means by which wearing Armor while using Magical Effects may be penalized; they range from Skill or Characteristic checks, fatigue, Pool-based restrictions, and other options.

These penalties might be used singly or in some combination.

DEX CHECK PENALTIES

This option is in effect in my campaigns for Arcane Magic Users

Under this method Magic Users wearing Armor must make a DEX check whenever they activate a Magical Effect with the Gestures Limitation. This DEX check is penalized for wearing Armor heavier than Light Armor. Similar penalties may be applied for other circumstances as well. These penalties are in addition to the standard penalties for Armor listed in the Weapons and Armament section. The applicable penalties follow.

D&D 3e Conversion

If converting to the HERO System from D&D 3e and trying to remain close to the source material, this version of armored casting restrictions should be used.

Gesture DEX Check Penalties for Wearing Armor

(All penalties are cumulative)

ARMOR TYPE PENALTY

Light -2 to DEX Check (-2 Total, -4 if non-proficient)

Medium -4 to DEX check (-5 Total, -8 if non-proficient)

Heavy -5 to DEX Check (-7 Total, -11 if non-proficient)

Shield -1 to DEX Check (-2 Total, -4 if non-proficient)

Tower Shield -4 to DEX Check (-8 Total, -12 if non-proficient)

Gauntlets -1 to DEX Check

Fully Enclosed Armor -2 to DEX Check

Magic Users may buy Penalty Skill Levels to offset these penalties if they wish.

ARMOR PENALTY SKILL LEVELS TO OFF SET GESTURES

Armor DEX Offset: Penalty Skill Levels: +2 to Offset Gestures DEX Penalty of Armor; Real Cost: 3 points

Shield DEX Offset: Penalty Skill Levels: +1 to Offset Gestures DEX Penalty of Shield; Real Cost: 1.5 points

ENCUMBRANCE BASED VARIANT -- GESTURES ONLY

This option is not in effect in my campaigns

Alternately, it may not be Armor per se which interferes with Magical Effects, but rather Encumbrance. As Armor is heavy and most Magic Users are puny physical specimens, the net effect is that most Magic Users can't activate Magical Effects while in Armor.

Instead of using the above arbitrary penalties, instead base the penalties off of the Encumbrance Table on page 250 of the HERO System 5th Edition Rulebook. Anytime a Magic User is Encumbered, whether from Armor or other sources, they must make a DEX check and suffer the listed DEX Roll Penalties when using Magical Effects with the Gestures Limitation.

REF: ENCUMBRANCE TABLE, Page 250 HERO System 5th Edition Rulebook

ENCUMBRANCE BASED VARIANT -- ALL SPELLS

This option is not in effect in my campaigns

Instead of using the above arbitrary penalties, instead base the penalties off of the Encumbrance Table on page 250 of the HERO System 5th Edition Rulebook. Anytime a Magic User is Encumbered, whether from Armor or other sources, they must make a DEX check and suffer the listed DEX Roll Penalties when using all Magical Effects, whether they have the Gestures Limitation or not.

REF: ENCUMBRANCE TABLE, Page 250 HERO System 5th Edition Rulebook

FATIGUE PENALTIES

This option is not in effect in my campaigns

Under this method Arcane Magic Users wearing Armor grow tired quickly when using Magical Effects. There are various levels that this might be set at, and may interact with one or more Power Limitations taken on Spells.

ENDURANCE LOSS

With this variant using a Magical Effect while wearing Armor is tiresome in much the same fashion that swinging a sword is. The Magic User spends Endurance equal to the Active Point Cost of the Spell divided by 10 (AP/10) just as they would for any Endurance costing Power.

If a Magical Effect already costs END, this END cost is in addition to any other END cost but must be paid for with personal END, not from an END Reserve.

LONG TERM ENDURANCE LOSS

With this variant using a Magical Effect while wearing Armor saps the strength of the Magic User and takes quite a while to recover from. The Magic User suffers Long Term Endurance (LTE) loss equal to the Active Points of the Power divided by 10.

If a Magical Effect already costs Long Term Endurance for some reason, such as a Side Effect, this LTE loss is in addition to any other LTE loss.

MAGIC SKILL ROLLS AND PENALTIES

This option is not in effect in my campaigns

Under this method Arcane Magic Users using Magical Effects while in Armor must succeed at an appropriate Magic Skill roll. If the Magic Users system of magic already requires such rolls to activate Magical Effects, a couple of ways of dealing with that are covered as well.

NO MAGIC SKILL NORMALLY REQUIRED

If this option is used with a Magic System that does not require Skill rolls be made to activate Magical Effects, then for no extra Limitation value wearing Armor forces a Skill Roll with either a suitable Magic Skill or failing that a Characteristic Roll (typically INT or EGO), and suffers the standard -1 per 10 Active Points penalty.

MAGIC SKILL NORMALLY REQUIRED, DOUBLE JEOPARDY

If a Magical Effect already requires a Skill Roll to activate, one way to handle Armored casting is to have the Magic User make two such skill rolls; one to activate the effect normally and another to see if the effect fizzles due to the Armor (conceptually either because Armor intrinsically disrupts Magic or because the Magic User's freedom of movement is curtailed, depending on the GM's preference).

MAGIC SKILL NORMALLY REQUIRED, GREATER PENALTY

An alternative for systems with a Required Skill Roll is to just increase the existing penalty to the roll (if any). I would recommend the following penalties in such a case..

Magic Skill Penalties for Wearing Armor

(All penalties are cumulative)

ARMOR TYPE PENALTY

Light -1 to Magic Skill Check

Medium -2 to Magic Skill Check

Heavy -3 to Magic Skill Check

Shield -1 to Magic Skill Check

Tower Shield -4 to Magic Skill Check

Gauntlets -1 to Magic Skill Check

Fully Enclosed -2 to Magic Skill Check

POOL AVAILABILITY RESTRICTION

This option is not in effect in my campaigns

Another way to restrict Armored Magical Effects use is to permit it only for Magical Effects that are "casual" for an idividual Magic User, granting more powerful Magic Users greater capability to wear Armor. This has the benefit of allowing something to Characters that are likely so powerful it's a moot point regardless. The Magic User that can cast a 100+ Active Point defense Magical Effect isnt likely to sludge along in Plate Mail afterall.

Under this type of variant, Magical Effects with a fraction of the Magic User's normal Active Point limit are castable in a given type of Armor, as depicted below. All penalties are cumulative.

Active Point Limits While Wearing Armor

(All penalties are cumulative)

ARMOR TYPE AP PENALTY

Light -25%

Medium -50%

Heavy -75%

Shield -15%

Tower Shield -50%

Gauntlets -15%

Fully Enclosed Armor -30%

EXAMPLE: Findros the Magnificent has a 120 Pool Magic VPP. While wearing Heavy Armor he can cast Spells of 30 Active Points or Less (25 % of 120), but may not cast Spells of 31 or more Active Points; if he also carried a Shield, he would only have -75% + -15% = -90% = 12 Active Points available -- not enought to cast much of anything with. Conversely if wearing Light Armor he would have 90 Active Points available, and with a Shield 78 Active Points.

TALENT BASED RESTRICTION

This option is not in effect in my campaigns

Yet another way to restrict Armored Magical Effect use is to permit it, but only for those who have purchased a costly Talent for the privelege. This has the advantage of allowing certain Character concepts, but with an "overhead cost", while at the same time acting to generally restrict Armored juggernaugts whipping out Fireballs and Lightning Bolts.

The cost of such a Talent might need some adjustments depending on the overall point level of a given campaign, but the following should work for most circumstances.

Armored Casting (Custom Talent)

This Talent allows a Character to activate Magical Effects while wearing Armor. The Character must also be proficient with the applicable Armor.

Armored Casting: 10 Points to activate Magical Effects while in Light Armor and/or with a Shield, 15 Points while in Medium Armor, or 20 Points while in Heavy Armor. +5 Points to use a Tower Shield while casting Spells whether in Armor or not.

[Old Man]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

Usually the exact type of penalty depends to some extent on whatever handwaving justification you're using to implement the penalty (ignoring the real reason, which is either game balance or 'feel'). Does armor make it too hard to do the contortions necessary to cast spells? Does iron somehow prevent the wearer from wielding magic? Perhaps head armor prevents the sorcerer's necessary use of the Third Eye.

 

Oddly enough, if I were to GM a straight-5e FH game I'd probably let the mages wear armor anyway, to compete with the tanks which have become, IMO, unbalancedly powerful. But I digress...

[Markdoc]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

How you set up the rules depends on what you want the effect to be:

 

If you use the regular encumbrance rules to define spell failure, expect mages to be big, muscly buff guys who wear armour.

 

If you set a flat penalty for armour on skill rolls, mages will probably be scrawnier, ('cos they will use extra points to beef up their magic rolls so they can wear armour without penalty). They'll mostly still wear armour, but not all will.

 

If you decrease the effect of magic in armour (by decreasing its power or giving it a chance of failure), then you can expect mages to generally not wear armour.

 

It seems like it is the latter you want, so I would suggest a genre-specific house rule:

 

All magic must take one of the two following -1/2 limitations -

a) Sorcery: must take a -0 limit: Side effect - spell failure: triggered by casting in armour.

 

or

Divine Magic: must take a -0 limit: Side effect - spell failure: triggered by casting a spell that does not match deity's alignment/purposes.

 

Since all magic takes these limits - and since the side effect is minimal (no lockout, no harm, the spell simply doesn't work) and since the side effect can be easily avoided, I'd class it as a -0 limit, so it does not affect spell cost.

 

cheers, Mark

[CourtFool]

Armor Spell Success!

 

I have always let mages cast their spells in armor without penalties in Hero.

 

When I was a D&Der, I thought like a D&Der, I spoke like a D&Der...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

So you're saying you think it fair that a spellcaster with a 20 STR be equally penalized by 5 kg as a spellcaster with 1 STR?

 

To play Devil's Advocate, maybe the answer should be "YES" to avoid an incentive for mages to buy up STR.

[Cantriped]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

Prefix: THis is gonna sound a little like I'm rambeling but I'm not really awake so forgive me.

The reason I based the penalty upon a base number of Kilos of armor was because it was the most "realistic" method of doing it while still keeping the average caster from running around in Full Plate without at least some kind of seperate skill investment, Armor dosn't work quite like weight either, as you'd probably realize if you ever wore it, it dosn't just encumber you, it also restricts movement to some extent if your shoulder is restricted by a paulderan it really won't matter wether your STR is 10 or 20, except that you probably won't also suffer encumberance based penalties on top of the armor based ones. for this reason I also adopted comperable DEX-Roll penalty for wearing armor. The restriction only effects spells with the Gestures limitation, so if a character dosn't take that limitation thier free and clear. Now the reason these are based on a flat amount of weight is because Sectional armor will be common (as I mentioned) and thus it would be... inconvient to attempt to base it on "Average" DEF or some similar modifier that is more inprecise to gauge. And classing it on Light, Medium, Heavy, etc probably wouldn't work either, because what if the play is wearing Chain (medium) on his arms, a FP breastplate (heavy), and leather (light) on his legs, which is counted. Instead you simply add up the total weight, so let for example say that odd assortment weights 30kg (not going to actually calc it atm, as I leave for school soon and don't have the time) the character would suffer a -6 to rolls on gestured spells, which is I realize, rather harsh, and I'll probably go back to -1/10 kg eventually. to responed to some of the comments likely to come, no I don't nessessarily want to "straightjacket" mages into not wearing armor, they can still buy PSLs for Armored Casting, if they wish, and still play an Armored mage, I just want there to be some effort involved. Anyway, sorry for ranting on like this, I'll check this when I get back from school.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

To play Devil's Advocate' date=' maybe the answer should be "YES" to avoid an incentive for mages to buy up STR.[/quote']

Why? it is a point based game. Points spent on one ability shortchange other abilities. If a spellcaster wants to develop other parts of their abilities, then they do so at the expense of their spellcasting. Opportunity Cost.

 

 

Armor suppression is just a form of a Control Factor, and a rather obstruse one at that. There are many other ways to balance Magic Systems. Just because D&D used that as a Control Factor for arcane spellcasters, there is no reason to blindly perpetrate the same limited thinking, particularly in a game like the HERO System where there are better, more appropriate controls available.

 

If Armor is used as a Control Factor, at least it should be scalable; the HERO System is not a game of absolutes. Rather than flat restrictions, relative restrictions work better. Characters that have paid more for abilities should be able to overcome things easier than those who havent. That basic tenant is at the root of point based mechanics.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

Why? it is a point based game. Points spent on one ability shortchange other abilities. If a spellcaster wants to develop other parts of their abilities, then they do so at the expense of their spellcasting. Opportunity Cost.

 

 

Armor suppression is just a form of a Control Factor, and a rather obstruse one at that. There are many other ways to balance Magic Systems. Just because D&D used that as a Control Factor for arcane spellcasters, there is no reason to blindly perpetrate the same limited thinking, particularly in a game like the HERO System where there are better, more appropriate controls available.

 

If Armor is used as a Control Factor, at least it should be scalable; the HERO System is not a game of absolutes. Rather than flat restrictions, relative restrictions work better. Characters that have paid more for abilities should be able to overcome things easier than those who havent. That basic tenant is at the root of point based mechanics.

 

I think either approach can work. It depends on what kind of game you want. Ultimately, the "effectiveness" question that will have to be answered is whether the mage is better served by buying up his Str and relying on armour for protection, or using the points saved on his STR to buy magical abilities instead.

 

An 8/8 0 END force field would cost 24 points, which is substantial. Slap on spell limitations, however, and the cost can go way down. As well, 8/8 characters (ie plate wearers) aren't all that common anyway. I don't think balance suffers if mages are allowed to wear armor the same as everyone else anyway.

 

However, the poster seems to want to discourage armored mages. I would suggest it would be more effective to base any penalty on the defenses provided by the armor than its encumrance if you want to discourage armored mages. Basing it on encumbrance seems more to e courage high STR mages than encourage unarmored mages.

[Cantriped]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

If Armor is used as a Control Factor, at least it should be scalable; the HERO System is not a game of absolutes. Rather than flat restrictions, relative restrictions work better. Characters that have paid more for abilities should be able to overcome things easier than those who havent. That basic tenant is at the root of point based mechanics.

 

Thus my reason for creating the limitations I have. A seperate penalty aside from the encumberance penalty makes armor a less attractive option but dosn't eliminate its worth entirely. It isn't so much that I want to make Armored mages impossible, but I do think that if they want to wear 80 pounds of Armor and make arcane gestulations it should at the very least be a little more dificult. I don't really expect the average mage in my game to go unarmored, they probably will wear some armor and simply buy a few PSLs to be rid of the penalties.

However I do think upon reflection that the penalty was a bit too harsh, does -1/10 sound more apropiate? considering that the penalty also applies to DCV and DEX-rolls?

jsut for the sake of backround the reason I'm so harsh with the magic system in my game is that I based it off the one presented in the Fantasy Grimoire. and I though I like the 1/3 Real point rule (because it allows players to have a verity os spells) I need somthing to justify it to myself

BTW, Killer Shrike,(don't take this like I'm just trying to kiss your A**) I've read over your site, and personally I feel your work in some cases rivels the information provided in Fantasy Hero for constructing viable Magic systems.

[CourtFool]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

Allow me to put forth an argument made by Outsider to me in private at my request. I am not saying I agree with him 100%, but it certainly is worth considering.

 

RE : Full price for spells

 

OK.. this is the situation under which I played last time I actually got to play FH (4th ed). I will proceed with full points/no frameworks as the assumption of how wizards pay for their spells.

 

 

RE : Wizards getting/needing CSLs

 

I am indeed suggesting that the wizard needs the same skill levels as the warrior (though the wizard's levels are applicable to spells) to make him competitive. Otherwise, even if his attack is large, it will largely be moot, as he misses with it constantly. This can be ameliorated by the wizard taking his spells as AoEs, but that will either up their active points considerably (possibly hitting the campaign's active point limit (which campaigns I have been in always seem to have) or lowering the size of the attack to a less than competitive level.

 

 

RE : High power/fancy Wizard spells

 

In my experinence, wizards with combat spells that are more powerful than a warrior's sword cant use tthem nearly as frequently or as safely because they've had to stack on the limitations and sacrifice some of their stats in order to afford the spell and the campaign associated/required spell casting skills.

 

 

As an example, lets build 2 characters.

 

The Warrior

 

Stats

20 S__ 10

14 D__ 12

15 C__ 10

12 B__ _4

10 I

10 E

13 P__ _3

10 C

_8 PD_ _4

_3 ED

_3 SPD _6

_7 R

30 E

30 S

 

Cbt Spending

4 (4) WF : Com Melee, Com Missile

12 (12) CSLs 4x All Axes

 

Non-Cbt Spending

2 (2) KS : Fighting Styles 11-

2 (2) KS : Warriors of Renown 11-

3 (3) Analyze 11-

3 (3) Riding (horses) 12-

 

75 pts total.

 

Equipment (Cbt load, backpack dropped) :

Chain Armor (full) (6 DEF) 20.0 kg

Large Metal Shield (+3 DCV/5 DEF/6 BOD) 7.0 kg

Battleaxe (used 1 handed) 1.6 kg

3x Francisca (throwable) 3.6 kg

Miscellany (clothes, etc) : 7.0 kg

 

Total Enc (cbt) : 39.2 kg (no penalties)

 

Cbt Stats :

OCV : 5 to 9, depending on level application

DMG (melee) : 2D6+1K to 3D6K, depending on level application

DMG (thrown range) : 2D6K to 2.5D6K, depending on level application

DCV : 8 (5+3)

Durability : 4.28 Hits, without recoveries (Takes 1 BOD & 7 Stun from each hit (-6 BOD, -14 STN from each 7/21 (std effect) attack. 30 STN total)

Endurance : 6 Turns (END divided by END used per turn attacking every phase, less post 12 recovery)

 

 

 

The Wizard

 

Stats

10 S

14 D__ 12

15 C__ 10

12 B__ _4

18 I __ _8

10 E

13 P__ _3

10 C

_2 PD

_3 ED

_3 SPD _6

_5 R

30 E

25 S

 

Cbt Spending

11 (11) Magic Skill, +4 levels 17-

12 (12) CSLs, 4xAll Fire Spells

14 (35) Firebolt Spell (2D6+1 RKA) RSR, OAF

10 (36) Flame Armor Spell (6 DEF Forcefield) 0E, Persistent, RSR, OIF, 2H Gestures to start, Extra Time (5 Minutes)

_5 (15) Fire Shield Spell (+3 DCV) RSR, OIF, Gestures Throughout (1 hand), Frontal arc only

 

Non-Cbt Spending

2 (2) KS : Arcane and Occult Lore 11-

2 (2) KS : School of Magic 11-

3 (3) Spell Research 13-

3 (3) Riding (horses) 12-

 

105 pts total.

 

Equipment (Cbt load, backpack dropped) :

Spell Foci (various) : 3.0 Kg

Miscellany (clothes, etc) : 7.0 kg

 

Total Enc (cbt) : 10.0 kg (no penalties)

 

Cbt Stats :

Melee :

OCV : 5 to 9, depending on level application

DCV : 8 (5+3)

DMG : 2D6+1K to 3D6K, depending on level application

Durability : 1.93 Hits, without recoveries (Figured as above, with wiz stats)

Endurance : 4.5 Turns (Figured as above with wiz stats)

 

 

SO...

 

Melee Attack : Advantage Warrior

The Attacks are the same OCV and DC, but the warrior's attack may use various melee manuvers (like sweep), his higher Recovery allows him to make more attacks before being out of endurance, AND the wizard's attack just fails ~10% of the time due to a failed Skill Roll .

 

Ranged Attack : Advantage Wizard

While the Wizard's attack will still simply fail to work ~10% of the time, it is 1 more DC, is a fully ranged (rather than being hurled) and is indefinitely repeatable, Endurance excepted. The Warrior's ranged attack, however, is thrown, and is limited to the number of Franciscas he is carrying.

 

Durability : Advantage Warrior

While their rDEFs may be the same, the warrior's higher Stun stat, Recovery, and PD make him far more durable than the wizard.

 

Endurance : Advantage Warrior (marginal)

While the Wizard and the Warrior both expend 4 END per Phase (1/5 str used for the warrior, allowing him to use both axe and shield, then 3 END per attack & 1 END per phase for the Fireshield for the wizard) the warrior's higher REC again puts him ahead.

 

 

And all this is despite the fact that the wizard has spent 30 more character points than the Warrior! heaven forbid you're playing in a 75 or 100 point campaign. The wizard would be over the limit, and still only have his basic attack and defence, rather than those fancy NND/Area effect spells you were talking about.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

I think either approach can work. It depends on what kind of game you want. Ultimately, the "effectiveness" question that will have to be answered is whether the mage is better served by buying up his Str and relying on armour for protection, or using the points saved on his STR to buy magical abilities instead.

 

An 8/8 0 END force field would cost 24 points, which is substantial. Slap on spell limitations, however, and the cost can go way down. As well, 8/8 characters (ie plate wearers) aren't all that common anyway. I don't think balance suffers if mages are allowed to wear armor the same as everyone else anyway.

 

 

The efficiency of using Magic for defense depends entirely on the nature of the Magic System in question.

 

But that isn't the point; the point is the HERO System is a game of OPTIONS and RELATIVE ABILITY. By assessing flat, arbitrary penalties or restrictions you work against both ideas.

 

 

However, the poster seems to want to discourage armored mages. I would suggest it would be more effective to base any penalty on the defenses provided by the armor than its encumrance if you want to discourage armored mages. Basing it on encumbrance seems more to e courage high STR mages than encourage unarmored mages.

 

 

Not at all -- it doesn't encourage STRONG mages so much as it encourages DILUTED mages. Every point that a spellcaster spends on abilities other than their spellcasting equates to them being a weaker spellcaster than they otherwise could be.

 

Giving spellcasters other outlets for their points results in weaker spellcasters.

 

 

In this case, if you took two characters using the same Magic System and otherwise identical, and Character A had spent more points on his STR so that he can wear Armor (plus any ancillary requirements such as Armor Proficiency if that is being used, and also in game monetary expenses to purchase the armor), and Character B had spent the same resources on his spellcasting instead, Character B is the more powerful spellcaster. Character A is the more balanced character. There are pros and cons to either.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Armor Spell Failure

 

Thus my reason for creating the limitations I have. A seperate penalty aside from the encumberance penalty makes armor a less attractive option but dosn't eliminate its worth entirely. It isn't so much that I want to make Armored mages impossible, but I do think that if they want to wear 80 pounds of Armor and make arcane gestulations it should at the very least be a little more dificult. I don't really expect the average mage in my game to go unarmored, they probably will wear some armor and simply buy a few PSLs to be rid of the penalties.

 

However I do think upon reflection that the penalty was a bit too harsh, does -1/10 sound more apropiate? considering that the penalty also applies to DCV and DEX-rolls?

 

jsut for the sake of backround the reason I'm so harsh with the magic system in my game is that I based it off the one presented in the Fantasy Grimoire. and I though I like the 1/3 Real point rule (because it allows players to have a verity os spells) I need somthing to justify it to myself

I'm not arguing against penalties, Im just arguing against tieing the penalties to a flat amount like 5kg. At least basing it on Encumbrance is relative to individual characters. If you want to asses a flat "cost of ownership", consider using the Armored Casting Talent I define in the document linked to in a previous post -- it will probably accomplish what you want, and it makes it an accomplishment of the character rather than an impediment about which they can do nothing.

 

BTW, Killer Shrike,(don't take this like I'm just trying to kiss your A**) I've read over your site, and personally I feel your work in some cases rivels the information provided in Fantasy Hero for constructing viable Magic systems.

Thanx! Always glad to hear people benefit from the site.