Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Does anyone use the multipliers mentioned in Fantasy HERO to give mages more spells in their campaigns? Or do they always make their mages pay full price so they aren't so muhc more powerful than the fighters and crafty types?

 

I'm not advocating one or the other -- merely asking for information.

[Hierax]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

IMO, if mages want more spells they either take more Limitations to make them cheaper and/or put them into a Power Framework.

 

Personally, I don't like the arbitrary dividers when the perfectly good Power Frameworks are already part of the HERO System.

[Midwesterner]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

I use the multipliers in my game, primarily because I wanted to encourage the use of magic. I saw my players building stats heavy fighters and wanted to encourage a variety of skills and abilities within the team.

 

I prevented them from becomming all powerful by utilizing the penalties to their magic roll, and making them buy a skill for each class of magic they used.

[Curufea]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

I like my mages to have the same power levels as my non magic user types - so no multipliers.

 

Sure mages need to wave their hands and incant - but non mages can have their weapons nicked. Mages can pick up swords and armour as well, so it evens out.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

Neither' date=' I let Wizards buy powers as skills.[/quote']

I've seen Skills purchased as Powers (so they can have Advantages and Limtiations tacked on), but never the reverse. It sounds very House Rule, but also potnetially very unbalancing. It is the approach used by the mainstream magic system of GURPS, though, but that system has a list of set spells with set effects. The customizability of HERO means that one could create truly awesome spells -- and that those spells should be very costly indeed.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

You pay points for everything in the new magic system I'm implementing.

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

Multipliers, but you have to purchase skills for the magic and I have Campaign World specific Magic limitations that restrict the capricious use of magic.

 

TB

[Nightshade]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

I've seen Skills purchased as Powers (so they can have Advantages and Limtiations tacked on)' date=' but never the reverse. It sounds very House Rule, but also potnetially very unbalancing. It is the approach used by the mainstream magic system of GURPS, though, but that system has a list of set spells with set effects. The customizability of HERO means that one could create truly awesome spells -- and that those spells should be very costly indeed.[/quote']

 

It is another option listed in Fantasy HERO. If you want spells to be very static and always have the same effect, no matter what (say like D&D), this is an option.

 

Oh, and no spell multipliers for me. Magic is pretty specialized on my world, but powerful. So, IMO, the expense is worth it...

 

Nightshade

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

I dont allow a Turakian style divisor. It cut's the throat of any Framework and is unnecessary besides IMO.

 

 

I have a number of Magic Systems that I allow within the same setting, detailed in full here:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/shrikeLinks.shtml

 

 

The Vancian Magic Systems are many variations on a Charge and Framework based meta system intended to model D&D style magic.

 

There are three Casting Models; a Prepared casting using a VPP whereby 1 Charge Spells are prepared to a VPP in the morning; a Spontaneous casting using a series of overlapping Multipowers with Charges on the Reserve and slots; and a "Gestalt" model using a partially cosmic VPP with the idea of a Pool of Charges shared by all Spells of the same level.

 

There are three fully described Magic Systems, one per casting model, in the form of Wizardry, Sorcery, and Arcanis Magnicus.

 

There are five variants on those Magic Systems that are usable with two or three of the casting models. Each variant document tells you what to override in one of the three full systems.

 

Elementalism (Earth, Air, Fire, Water style magic)

Dominine (Divine Magic with Domains)

Animine (Nature Magic)

Sortilege (subtle magic arranged in "schools" around Interaction Skills)

Stregari (witchcraft flavored magic)

********************

 

Aeldenaren, Metier, and Adeptology are an EC, a Multipower, and a VPP style respectively.

 

Loremastery is a VPP style that models the Warhammer 2e style of Magic.

********************

 

Magecraft, Spellweaving, Totemic Shamanism, and Piedragemasi are variations on Skill based Magic Systems.

 

Magecraft bundles Spell effects into expensive Skills.

 

In Spellweaving you buy a Skill per Base Power (like RKA, Flight, etc), and it works as a mini-VPP for effects built on that Power.

 

Totemic Shamanism and Piedragemasi are Familiarity based Systems with a collection of flat effects that you gain access to with 1 pt Familiarities arranged into tiered groups. Totemic Shamanism is grouped by Animal Totems, Piedragemasi by Gemstones.

********************

 

Finally Runeforging is a combination Familiarity and Craftsmanship Skill system whereby characters pay for Fam's with Runes (1 pt per Rune they know), and then are able to inscribe those Runes on various media dependent on what craftsmanship skills they know, like PS: Calligraphy, PS: Carving, PS: Embroidery, PS: Engraving, PS: Sculpting, and PS: Tattooing.

********************

[mvoncannon]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

I'm not advocating one or the other -- merely asking for information.

 

I have and this is what I found out.

 

1. The .33 multiplier allows the spells to work like a framework, but with a different cost. A multipower, allows the mage to get a *LOT* of spells, thusly tipping the scales.

 

2. I had to make casting all magic a half phase action. Since I enforced gestures, incantations, and RSR, this made since. Otherwise a mage would have had a FF, a FW, and a few other non-attack based spells going off at once.

 

Just my opinion.

[mvoncannon]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

I dont allow a Turakian style divisor. It cut's the throat of any Framework and is unnecessary besides IMO.

 

 

I have a number of Magic Systems that I allow within the same setting, detailed in full here:

 

I have looked at your site and am quite impressed. I would implement several of the ideas you have on the next run of my fantasy game.

[MitchellS]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

I'm not playing fantasy now but I have been building Jedi-like powers for a race in my Star Hero game with the divisor.

[Outsider]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

Wizards need something to make up for all the free (pointwise) stuff that warriors get. The armor, sheild, and weapons that warriors get take a wizard about 30 points in spells to duplicate. And before anyone says that the wizard is free to wear armor & shield, and to carry weapons, the problem is that wizards lack STR (leading to encumbrance and damage level problems), lack of skill levels (wizards wont have skill levels applicable to melee weapons), and genre violation (how many wizards in literature wear field plate and carry a tower shield?)

 

Think about it...So a wizard if free to pick up a sword? But if the opponents in a campaign are balanced to face 2.5 D6 killing attacks delivered at 8 OCV, how useful is a 1D6+1 Killing attack delivered at 5 OCV? Not really very useful at all.

 

Here are 2 characters who have equivalent attacks and defences, other than figured stats. The 1st is a 75 point warrior, the second a 105 point wizard. Despite spending 30 more character points the wizard is, IMHO, less powerful except in one circumstance : the range fight in which the opponent cannot close.

 

 

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.

[Hierax]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

Other radical ideas on how to even out Wizards & Warriors:

• You could treat spells as Equipment that you pick up from a spell book (Vancian memorization).
  
• You could actually make the Warriors pay points for Equipment and buy then as powers like most people have Wizards do with spells.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

2. I had to make casting all magic a half phase action. Since I enforced gestures, incantations, and RSR, this made since. Otherwise a mage would have had a FF, a FW, and a few other non-attack based spells going off at once.

 

Just my opinion.

Actually, the rules cover this already. If Powers have Lims that affect activation of powers, then they cant be doubled up on. Read under Incantations and Gestures for more info.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

I have looked at your site and am quite impressed. I would implement several of the ideas you have on the next run of my fantasy game.

Thanx!

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

Snip

 

That sort of comparison relies entirely too much on decisions particular to a given setting, such as Magic System(s) in use, rules regarding Armor use, relative power levels, number of points, and so forth to make sweeping declarations about.

 

In your setting with the decisions you've made and enforce that might be true, but they are not universally true. There are many other ways to configure a fantasy setting where the opposite is true, and still other ways where the two balance out.

 

 

For instance, which one of these characters from my Fantasy campaign is more powerful?

 

Heavy Warrior:

http://www.killershrike.com/SanDora/Characters/PCs/SaemundMagnussun.HTML

 

Light Warrior:

http://www.killershrike.com/SanDora/Characters/PCs/RogateTurvoldsen.HTML

 

Elementalist:

http://www.killershrike.com/SanDora/Characters/PCs/KjarKvaransen.HTML

 

 

More importantly, regardless of how that works out, it is a comparison that is only meaningful within the context of my game.

[Gunrunner]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

I am for using the multipliers. There are several reasons I see why someone would not use power frameworks for a magic system. I used to use a multipower framework to give mages a point break and allow them to compete with warriors, but I've encountered a few problems and have come to believe that the .33 cost multiplier is better for these reasons:

 

1) Simplicity - It's a lot easier to tell new players that the spells they want have individual point costs and let them figure out how many they can take then explaining to them how power frameworks work. With a multipower's active point cost limit, you have to keep track of how many spells a player can have on at one time and sum up all the active point costs of these spells and make sure it doesn't go over their limit...too much micromanagement for my tastes.

 

2a) For multipowers, they only become cost-effective initially when all the powers share many of the same limitations. A varied magic system like the one in Grimoire would require many types of frameworks to account for all the different types of magic and their varying limitations. But this could be a good thing if you want to limit a wizard's choice in powers or make them weak until they gain enough character points to make their multipower truly effective.

 

2b) Also for multipowers, you could not have powerful effects that affect a very limited number of targets since such a spell would likely go over your active point cost limit. The raw effect of the spell would give it a high active point cost. But even if you add lots of limitations to make the power balanced and give it a low real point cost, you still couldn't use it because it's active point cost is higher than your multipower's active point cost limit.

 

3) If you use an EC, then all your spells would have to have a minimum active point cost equal to the EC pool cost. So in this case, to save a lot of points, you would have to spend a LOT of points. And you couldn't have any cheap spells in that framework. Not too good for heroic-level wizards.

 

4) As for VPP's, I just don't like using that style of magic. Also see reason #1

 

So in conclusion, I can see why the Turakian Age magic system was designed the way it was. The RSR limitation is what I believe really keeps a wizard in check when it comes to becoming too powerful.

[Outsider]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

For instance, which one of these characters from my Fantasy campaign is more powerful?

 

And here I thought we were talking about straight purchase vs spell multiplier, not straight purchase vs spell multiplier vs power framework.

 

In any case, breaking down the numbers on the characters you presented :

 

Attacking, Defending, & Endurance:

 

Heavy warrior with Heavy Longsword* (OCV : Levels : DCV : END/phase : DC)

_5 : _5 : 10 : _5 : 11 : Melee with Defensive Strike & Shield

_5 : _5 : _7 : _5 : 11 : Melee w. Defensive Strike, Shield out of arc

_4 : _3 : _7 : _5 : _7 : Range with Shield

_4 : _3 : _4 : _5 : _7 : Range with Shield out of arc

 

SPD 3, END 30, REC 9.

Number of attacks before being out of END = 12 (lower END/REC)

Number of attacks before being out of END = 30 (higher END/REC)

Long term sustainable attacks per turn = 2.57 (lower END/REC)

Long term Sustainable attacks per turn = 2.75 (higher END/REC)

 

 

Light warrior with Heavy Longsword* (OCV : Levels : DCV : END/phase : DC)

_7 : _3 : _9 : _2 : 13 : Melee with Shield

_7 : _3 : _6 : _2 : 13 : Melee with Shield out of arc

_6 : _2 : _9 : _2 : _6 : Range with Shield

_6 : _2 : _6 : _2 : _6 : Range with Shield out of arc

 

SPD 4, END 26, REC 7.

Number of attacks before being out of END = 105

Long term sustainable attacks per turn = 3.89

 

 

Elementalist (OCV : Levels** : DCV : END : DC)

_5 : _4 : _4 : 6c : 12 : Melee or range (Flamebolt)

_4 : _4 : _2 : 6c : _8 : Melee or range (Skybolts, up to 3 shots per charge)

_4 : _2 : _4 : _1 : _2 : Melee, weapon of opportunity

_4 : _2 : _4 : 10 : 10 : Melee, with both density spells running***

_4 : _2 : n4 : 22 : 22 : Melee, with both density spells & Growth running***

 

SPD 3, END 26, REC 4.

Number of spell attacks before being out of charges = 6

Number of attacks before being out of END = unlimited 2DC attacks (woo!)

Number of attacks before being out of END = 2 Full Density Attacks.

Number of attacks before being out of END = 1 Full Density & Growth Attack.

Long term sustainable attacks per turn = 0.00 (Spells recover per day)

Long term sustainable attacks per turn = 3.00 (2 DC weapon of opportunty)

Long term sustainable attacks per turn = 1.14 (full Density)

Long term sustanable attacks per turn = 0.50 (full D&R)

 

 

*Not on his equipment list, but it -is- on the Light Warrior's list, and works just dandy with the HW's 23 STR. 2D6+1, 18 Str Min, 1 handed, right? This lets the HW use his shield for the 3 DCV bonus. I would also note that this 'Heavy Longsword' does 2DC more than a standard one for just 6 more Str Min. I probably wouldnt allow it in my game, since it is too much better than what is already out there.

 

** Two of these levels are 3 point 'with spells' levels, and so, if put into DCV, only apply to spell attacks, not mundane ones. The -maximum- non-dodging DCV the Elementalist can therefore generate against either warrior's attacks is 7.

 

***Note that in both thses situations, the mage will have -serious- trouble actually exerting for very long the massive strength allowed him by the density increase and/or growth. He's only got 26 END, which will give him 2 phases at full Density str, or 1 phase at full density plus growth Strength. In addition, if he does grow to monolithic size in combat, his DCV is negative 4 (before levels) and his OCV is still only 4 (before levels) meaning that his odds of hitting a trained opponent are minimal... unless you give him free AoE on his attacks while he is grown.

 

 

So...

 

Skill and damage wise :

 

The elementalist has trouble hitting the warriors. He generates (at best) a 9 OCV with Flamedart. Assume that he is at some range (otherwise the warriors will chew him up with melee weapons) and takes at least a -2 to hit due to range, for 7 OCV effective. The wariors generate a 10 or 11 DCV against direct damage ranged attacks (4 base, 3 from levels, 3 from shield, or 6 base, 2 from levels, 3 from shield) without losing their phase, meaning the elementalist will hit on an 8- or 7-, and hit the sheild on a 11- or 10-. A 12 DC attack that hits the a shield should pretty thoroughly destroy the shield, though, making the next Flamedart hit the warrior in question directly on that 11- or 10-. If the warrior opts to abort his phase to dodge, rather than closing the 8" (max for a -2 range penalty) that the elementalist is away, however, the Elementalist will hit only on a 5-/4-, or 8-/7- to hit the sheild. Pretty low odds, especially since he can only toss 6 shots a day. He could easily use them all trying to hit a dodging warrior. For a sacrifice of 1 OCV (and halving his DCV) he could use Skybolts instead, which will give him a lot more shots. 8 DC instead of 12 DC, though, so it will take two of them to destroy the shield, rather than just the one, and 3 or 4 more to put down the HW with his 9 rDef and 36/39 STUN. Considering his odds of hitting a dodging HW are 1 in 4, he will get an average of 4.5 hits on all 18 potential casts of Skybolt over the course of 6 turns. 2 of those will hit the shield, destroying it, and the other 2.5 will hit the warrior, doing 10 or 12 STUN per hit (std effect) for 25 or 30 stun, probably spread over several turns, meaning that the HW will get several post 12 recoveries to make good the lost STUN.

 

So...Instead of wasting firepower on the shield he could use his indirect attack and avoid the sheild all together. Of course, his OCV with this (Lightningbolt) is 1 lower than with Flamebolt, meaning he is at 6 OCV counting the range penalty, as he was with Skybolt. And now his DCV will be halved. The Warriors will be at their "range, sheild out of arc" DCV then, meaning 7 and 8, without dodging, or 10 and 11 with. Now the elementalist hits on a 10- and 9- if his targets save their phase for counterattack, or 7- and 6- if they dont. And he will be doing 9 DC instead of 12 if he does hit, meaning 9BODY and 27 STUN per hit (0 BODY and 15 STUN on the HW...still not enough to stun him. And the Elementalist still has only has 6 shots all day. At 7- to hit, he is odds to get between 1 and 2 hits... not enough to put the HW under.

 

So how about avoiding the to hit problem all together by using his AoE(Explosion) attack? OK... now his target DCV will be all of 3 for the hex. His OCV will be 6 counting a range modifier of -2. 14- to hit the hex is pretty good odds, so we wont worry about misses reducing the explosion damage. But...as with the skybolts, it is only doing 8 DC. And if the campaign allows dive for cover, it could well do even less. This will be 8 BODY and 24 STUN (std effect) against a target who has 9 rED (the HW) and 14 total ED... so it will do 10 stun per cast. This isnt enough to exceed the HW's CON, so no stunnage. Then consider that it takes 2 phases for the Elementalist to cast this spell, and examine the following :

 

Phase 12 : Elementalist starts casting

Post 12 Recovery :

Phase _4 : Elementalist finishes casting : HW takes 10 Stun (29 remaining)

Phase _8 : Elementalist starts casting

Phase 12 : Elementalist finishes casting : HW takes 10 Stun (19 remaining)

Post 12 Recovery : HW recovers 11 STUN (30 remaining)

Phase _4 : Elementalist starts casting

Phase _8 : Elementalist finishes casting : HW takes 10 Stun (20 remaining)

Phase 12 : Elementalist starts casting

Post 12 Recovery : HW recovers 11 STUN (31 remaining)

Phase _4 : Elementalist finishes casting : HW takes 10 Stun (21 remaining)

Phase _8 : Elementalist starts casting

Phase 12 : Elementalist finishes casting : HW takes 10 Stun (11 remaining)

Post 12 Recovery : HW recovers 11 STUN (22 remaining)

Phase _4 : Elementalist starts casting

Phase _8 : Elementalist finishes casting : HW takes 10 Stun (12 remaining)

Phase 12 : Elementalist is out of charges for the day.

 

And all during this time, the HW hasnt used any of his phases... so he could easily be either closing with the elementalist to use his nice 11 to 13 DC killing attack on him, or he's been peppering the half DCV mage with 7 DC range attacks.

 

Its been longwinded, but basically, the elementalist doesnt have the OCV or sustained damage dealing potential to successfully fight the heavy warrior. Ergo, the HW is the superior combat character. He will either outlast the elementalist, or hold the field, if the elementalist opts to flee.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

It sounds to me like the obvious solution is to simply not allow P{C wizards at all! If a wizard is never going to be able to compete on an even field with the non-wizxard, either being too powerful or too weak, then only NPCs, who don't have to worry abount point balance, should be given magic.l

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

It sounds to me like the obvious solution is to simply not allow P{C wizards at all! If a wizard is never going to be able to compete on an even field with the non-wizxard' date=' either being too powerful or too weak, then only NPCs, who don't have to worry abount point balance, should be given magic.l[/quote']

Im going to assume thats meant as humor.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

Im going to assume thats meant as humor.

Partly. It does show why an obsession with game balance, on one side or the other, can have absurd consequences.

 

However, there may indeed be system reasons to keep magic out of the hands of players -- as well as game reasons. In Tolkien, "mortals" had no magic at their command -- it was a power they simply couldn't handle.

 

And, of course, in traditional Sword & Sorecey fiction magic is slow, subtle rather than flashy, and universally in the hands of villains.

 

D&D style fantasy has both extremes. beginning mages have a hard time suyrbibing, but if they manage to they become so powerful that they dominate their environment,

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

Outsider: your analysis, while detailed, is flawed.

 

A) You've cheated the Elementalist out of a significant number of Actions.

 

Delayed Phase is not Extra Segment. All Delayed Phase means is that the Attack resolves at 1/2 the casters DEX. So in this case, if the Elementalists starts casting at an 11 DEX, the spell resolves at 6 DEX. The character can still take a 1/2 Phase Action at their Normal DEX.

 

You are making incorrect assumptions about the context of my game. For instance, I use Superheroic END, so the Elementalists END goes further than you factored in. Also, I use a different equipment list than the one in the book. I also require Armor proficiencies. I also have house rules about Killing Attacks. And of course I use generalized damage rather than Hit Locations. Those are just the high points; my campaign is uniquely my own, just as practically all other GM's campaigns are theres.

 

C) You are making the completely false assumption that the only way to compare the usefulness of two characters is to compare their combat capabilities.

 

You seem to be saying that if the Elementalist is not exactly as good as a dedicated warrior at doing one on one damage, hitting reliably and inflicting as much damage, then they must be at an unfair advantage, despite all of the other things that they can do that the warrior has absolutely no ability at.

 

Lets ponder that for a moment...

 

The light and heavy warriors can:

 

*Hit often

*Not get hit often

*Do a lot of damage

*Take some damage

 

The Elementalist can:

 

Detect Heatsources w/ the Tracking option

*Allow up to 32 people to Breathe underwater for a Day

*Block off all Sight & normal Smell in a 2" radius, with Personal Immunity

*Erect a personal Force Field with Protects carried that is practically immune to 2d6 and below KA's

*Effectively perma-Spatial Awareness

*50% Physical Damage Reduction and 25% Energy Damage Reduction -- Resistant

*Erect a flaming aura

*Grant himself and up to 31 other people 3 levels of Density Increase

*Fly at about 120 mph non combat or 13" in combat

*Boost himself to 53 PRE for big PRE attacks

*Shoot Explosions with an 8" spread

*Shoot a 4d6 RKA or a 3d6 Indirect RKA, or a 3d6-1 RKA with Lingering

*Erect a 6 DEF ~4 BODY barrier

*Grow to 28m tall and gain +60 STR

*Erect an area in a 4" Rad that does a double penetrating BODY and also negates 5" of Run

*Get the equivalent of Plate armor and +30 STR for a minute

*Tunnel 7" thru DEF 8 w/ Fill in Hole all day long

 

So basically, while the warriors run around trading blows, the Elementalist flies around, or Tunnels beneath their feet, using Spatial Awareness to detect whatever he likes, choosing from four different direct attack options and few disruption options, has a better selection of defenses by far, and can opt to jump up to 95 STR and drop a building on something or use a tree for a 9-iron, or just rip the ground out from underneath something and toss it.

 

Plus, whatever experience the Elementalist gets is spent on new spells, or on getting access to higher Active Point spells. His options are pretty wide open.

 

If he were to fight one of the warriors, their best bet is to sneak up on him. If the Elementalist were asked he might say "you can have your "free" sword; i'll settle for just flying around farting lightning bolts instead."

 

 

 

So, in summary:

 

1) Looking at OCV, DCV, and DC, or damage per turn does not tell the whole story. Relative capability is a much more complicated animal than that in the HERO System.

 

2) It is not possible to make sweeping generalizations about balancing magic users vs non magic users that apply universally. As stated previously, comparing characters in this fashion is only meaningful within the context of a particular campaign.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

Partly. It does show why an obsession with game balance, on one side or the other, can have absurd consequences.

 

However, there may indeed be system reasons to keep magic out of the hands of players -- as well as game reasons. In Tolkien, "mortals" had no magic at their command -- it was a power they simply couldn't handle.

 

And, of course, in traditional Sword & Sorecey fiction magic is slow, subtle rather than flashy, and universally in the hands of villains.

 

D&D style fantasy has both extremes. beginning mages have a hard time suyrbibing, but if they manage to they become so powerful that they dominate their environment,

Magic is a large part of what makes Fantasy what it is. Excising Magic due to the inability of the GM and or players to acheive a tennable balance is not only a shame, it is unnecessary.

 

If that's the kind of game you want to run then such is your perogative. However, it's certainly not a game that I personally would want to play in.

 

FACT: Magic can be balanced against non Magic to an acceptible relative equality within a given context. However, what works in one context cannot necessarily be generalized to apply equally in all contexts.

[WilyQuixote]

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers?

 

OK I felt the need to chime in on this particular discussion. Ive been gaming with Shrike for almost ten years now (sheesh where does the time go ). I don't number crunch or analyse game mechanics like he does, but I do know he is very good at it and it almost always comes fair and consistent for everyone at the table. I've just learned to trust his judgement in all things gaming pretty much.

 

Now having said that I can speak from experience on this particular subject. Two of the three example heroes used here happen to be my characters and were run simultaneously. I can tell you this that Kjar was not ever at anymore of a disadvantage then his fellow adventurers were. If anything he was nearly a pivotal part in every battle because of his magic and the power framework it was built on. He used his magic in nearly every RPing session and certainly in the combat sessions. Often times he was doing things when no one else was simply because he could.

 

All I'm saying is that the heroes were all balanced out and Kjar held his own with the best of the warriors if not outright out shining them. Yes some of this does come down to the players behind the characters but you can't account for that anyways. Also as was mentioned earlier this only pertains to Shrike's campaign so take it for what its worth. Even in a S&S campaign though a player should be able to play a wizard/sorcerer if he/she wants to and still be able to keep up with the warriors IMO. It's totally doable, you just need to work at it, and if all else fails summon forth the many and varied talents posting on these fine boards for help!