Help with magic please.

[Briguy123]

In the new campaign I'm writing up, I'm going to try a new approach to magic, and I would like some feedback. I am treating each individual spell as a skill. Spells are purchased as 2 pt. skills much like science or professional skills for 3 pts. the character gets the appropiate stat roll (Int. for alchemy and ego for wizardry). Every additional point grants a +1 bonus to the skill roll. There are also appropriate skill modifiers. "Alchemist" grants the charachter a 1 pt. cost break on alchemical formulae (spells) and "True Mage" grants the same for wizard spells.

 

However, skill rolls are modified by the real point cost of the spell. For every five real points the spell would normally cost, there is a -1 modifier to the skill roll. Example: Skippy the grand master of storms wishes to learn a lightning bolt spell. The lightning bolt is defined as a 2d6 RKA that is indirect (it comes down from the sky) the active point cost is 45. However, the spell can only be used outside (-1/2), requires incantations, gestures, full phase activation and 0 DCV concentration. The total disads equal -2.5 for a real cost of 13 points. This gives the skill roll a -3 modifier, thus for 2 pts., Skippy can successfully call lightning on a roll of 8< (11< with the -3 modifier). The roll can be increased on a 1 pt. per +1 basis, so if Skippy's player spent five more points, Skippy could successfully cast the spell on a roll of 13<. This would normally cost a total of seven character points; However Skippy's player purchased the skill modifier "True mage" so Skippy gets a 1 pt. cost break. The final result is that Skippy the Storm Master can successfully call lightning on a roll of 13< for a total cost of six points.

 

I have several reasons for designing my system this way. First and foremost, I think that since all characters can wield a weapon without paying for the relevant power, alchemists and wizards should get the same consideration. What they are paying for are the skills to effectively wield magic just as warriors pay for the skills to effectively use weapons. I'm hoping that the negative modifiers associated with the real point value of a magic spell will help adjust for the fact that many magic spells are more powerful and/or effective than a standard weapon. Secondly, I don't like the magic skill roll mechanic as outlined in FREd. In order to have any hope of reliably casting a powerful spell, a mage must buy up his magic skill roll so high that he can automatically cast weaker spells even if they are spells that he just learned and has little or no practice wielding. Using my system, the mage's ability with a given spell is dependent on the time and effort (i.e. experience points spent) he put into learning that spell.

 

I've already run one short campaign using the new magic system and haven't run into any major problems. However, as I said, it was a short campaign. More experience may reveal unanticipated problems with the mechanic.

 

I would appreciate input from anyone about my ideas. If you can think of any potential problems that may arise or suggest improvements I welcome your suggestions. Even if you think it stinks and that I should scrap the idea, let me know, but please explain why you think it stinks.

[AnotherSkip]

hmmm sounds decent

so you are saying that for 3 base points you get 9+(stat)/5 right?

 

Are you considering having them as a sort of long term learning experience?

Also can you buy a Familiarity(8-) with some magic skills?

 

What about 3 and five point skill levels, or heck Overall skill levels?

 

The main point is that instead of having 10 skills @ +1 you can have 10 skills at +1(one at a time) plus DCV, or OCV or ECV.

 

Something to consider for long term campaigns

 

 

 

 

Besides: Im Skippy, Thank You very much for recognising my innate mastery of magic.

[Briguy123]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

so you are saying that for 3 base points you get 9+(stat)/5 right?

 

Yes.

 

 

Are you considering having them as a sort of long term learning experience?

Also can you buy a Familiarity(8-) with some magic skills?

 

Again you are correct.

 

What about 3 and five point skill levels, or heck Overall skill levels?

 

The main point is that instead of having 10 skills @ +1 you can have 10 skills at +1(one at a time) plus DCV, or OCV or ECV.

 

Something to consider for long term campaigns

 

FOR GOD'S SAKE, GET OUTTA MY HEAD YOU FREAKIN' MINDREADER!

 

To answer your question, magic spells will be treated as skills in all respects. Below is a breakdown of how magic skill levels (MSL's) work when applied to spells.

 

1 pt. = +1 with any one spell or alchemical formula

3 pts. = +1 with a narrow group of spells or formulae(e.g. all

fire spells or all healing potions).

5 pts. = +1 with all spells or all formulae.

8 pts. = +1 with all spells and formulae (for those that have

chosen to master both alchemy and wizardry).

 

Levels can be applied to either increase the chance of successfully casting the spell or in some cases to increase the effect of the spell. Since CSL's can be spent on increasing a weapons damage, I think it only appropriate that the same mechanic be applied to magic.

 

I particularly like my players to use the 3 pt. levels as they lend themselves to creating a magic user with a theme. Skippy, as the resident master of storms, you might find it very useful to buy several 3 pt. levels with all weather spells.

[BlueBuddha]

It would probably be more fair, adhering more strictly to the rules, to buy all your magicians a VPP for the max # of AP that the mage is going to be able to cast. The control cost would be fairly heavily limited, but it would still be expensive.

 

Your method makes magic very cheap, but it sounds restictive enough that it's not so unbalancing. Question- with this system, are your mages better at combat than they normally would be?

 

I'm not sure I understand the skill level deal. Can you use standard skill levels with magic, or only magic skill levels?

 

BlueBuddha

[Briguy123]

Originally posted by BlueBuddha

It would probably be more fair, adhering more strictly to the rules, to buy all your magicians a VPP for the max # of AP that the mage is going to be able to cast. The control cost would be fairly heavily limited, but it would still be expensive.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is my opinion that since any character can use a weapon or tool without paying points for the power, and spells can are essentially magic-users' weapons and tools, I think it is fair to allow characters to use certain powers as long as they purchase the requisite skills. For the sake of balance spells created by players are subjected to intense GM scrutiny. Making the player pay for the VPP would lead to mages that spent all their points on spells with little left over for other skills, and I run a skill intensive game.

 

Originally posted by BlueBuddha

Your method makes magic very cheap, but it sounds restictive enough that it's not so unbalancing. Question- with this system, are your mages better at combat than they normally would be?

 

It seemed to work out well in the first play test. The two dedicated mages spent about twenty-five or thirty points on spells starting out which allowed each of them a decent number of spells (About five each, I think, though I don't have the character sheets handy to check this). The spells ranged in power from a 3 PD/ 3 ED armor spell to a 1.5d6 explosive RKA. Because the spellcasters had just finished their apprenticeships, I limited the skill rolls to 13< and some of their spells were as low as 11<. Both mages were somewhat skilled at normal combat, but could not stand up one on one vs the groups frontline fighters without the use of spells. However, I agree that using this method without the GM enforcing some character creation guidelines, could lead to some very unbalanced mages.

 

Originally posted by BlueBuddha

I'm not sure I understand the skill level deal. Can you use standard skill levels with magic, or only magic skill levels?

 

BlueBuddha [/b]

 

MSL's and overall skill levels are the only levels that can be applied to a spells skill roll or increase it's effect (2 MSL's can be sacrificed for an increase of 5 active points in spell power). Combat skill levels are used to target spells which require to-hit rolls, but may not be used to increase skill rolls or boost power effects.

 

Thanks for your input.

[Markdoc]

Just looking at the system, it is going to require intensive GM oversight to keep it anything like balanced. If you want a game with mostly, or all magic users, that's OK.

 

As it stands, once players get a bit of experience, magic users should be easily able to outclass their fighterly companions, with access to the same free weapons and armour, but also access invisbility, blindness spells, flight, etc.

 

We have played around with variants on the "Fighters don't pay for swords and armour, so mages shouldn't pay for spells" and it has always led to a game where all the characters are mages or (more usually) fighter-mages.

 

A more balanced way to approach this kind of thing might be to say that fighters get weapons and armour for free, but no magic, while mages get magic for free, but no weapons and armour.

 

Othewise it becomes: everybody gets weapons for free and mages get magic for free too.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Briguy123]

Originally posted by Markdoc

Just looking at the system, it is going to require intensive GM oversight to keep it anything like balanced. If you want a game with mostly, or all magic users, that's OK.

 

As it stands, once players get a bit of experience, magic users should be easily able to outclass their fighterly companions, with access to the same free weapons and armour, but also access invisbility, blindness spells, flight, etc.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

I can see your point, but I like running games where warrior mages are a viable option. One of the ways I try to limit mages is to limit the number of points that they can spend on magic. In the short run campaign I mentioned in my first post, the two dedicated mages were only allowed to spend 20% of their total points on magic and skill rolls were limited to 13<. This seemed to provide some balance, because the fighters did not have to worry about whether or not their weapons would work in a given phase. Additionally, spells over 15 active points were required to have a side effect, and spellcasting always required the concentration disad which lowered the casters DCV. This made casting spells risky enough that the mages were very careful about when and where they used magic, and often took extra time when casting a spell to ensure success. However, as I said before, it was a short campaign. A longer playtest may be required to work out the bugs and balance issues may become apparent during further playtesting.

[Prydwin]

Magic ... a way of life

 

I have read through the prior posts, and the mechanics that you have outlined are by far the best I have seen. I do have a suggestion (humbly submitted) for the balance problem. Use the aspects of roleplaying. In other words, cap what the players can buy in the beginning, and force them to seek out the new skills. Maybe limit the number points that can be expended on various types of spells (offensive, defensive, transport etc.)

If all the players are warrior mages I think you might lose some diversity of play. Some players (and NPCs) might get the quick bang if a swordmaster is easier to find then Wizard who is willing to take an adventuring student.

In the campaign that you are creating are some schools more difficult to locate then others?

I am definitly intrigued by the mechanics you have set forth.

[Lucius]

Just a Thought...

 

Just some off the cuff ideas....

 

Require a Perk as well as the skill. The more spent on the Perk, the more active points can be accessed. Possibly require different perks for different "schools" or types of magick.

 

Using a skill often requires tools, not to mention such things as concentration, etc. In order to use a sword skill, the warrior needs a sword. In order to pick a lock, a character needs lockpicks and some time to work. I imagine magick is more flexible - maybe you DON'T need the Talisman of Gabriel and an hour's uninterrupted meditation to cast this spell, but without it you take a minus to the roll and risk some kind of backlash. Also, it's worth remembering that for an attack spell for instance, the warrior just rolls to hit with a sword, the mage rolls skill AND to hit with a spell. It MIGHT not be as unbalanced as I fear it would be.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

(-: :-)

[PhilFleischmann]

I like it. The balance problem, IMO, can only be truly curbed by limiting the spells themselves, not by how many points the players can spend on the skill. If you want to keep mages in line with warriors, no spell should have too much more DCs (or equivalent Active Points) than the largest weapon. If a warrior can do maximum 10 DC (2-handed sword+extra STR+martial arts maneuver), then there should be no such thing as a 12d6 6" radius fireball spell. Perhaps there could be a 12d6 EB (no area, with some lims), or a 6d6 EB Area, etc.

 

Unless you want all players to eventually become mages.

[Briguy123]

Re: Magic ... a way of life

 

Originally posted by Prydwin

In the campaign that you are creating are some schools more difficult to locate then others?

I am definitly intrigued by the mechanics you have set forth.

 

Thanks for the compliment!

 

As for your question, yes. According to my world design, magic is a very esoteric practice. Much of the magical lore is kept by various temples, just as the Catholic church was once the main repository for the historic, philosophic and scienctific lore of western civilization. In my world the various religious institutions tend to collect magical knowledge that relates to their respective gods' realms of influence. For example, The temples of Solar, God of the Sun and Revealer of Truth, maintain texts on fire magic and spells that enhance the senses.

 

Spells held by religious institutions are normally taught to those of the faith. Some religions only reveal such secret knowledge to priests while others only require that the student spend some time in service to the temple. However, there are several schools with no affiliation to a particular religion. My campaign city is the home of The Great Library of Xandrion. This August institution is sponsored by the Triarch (the cities high muckety-muck) and is a repository of lore collected from all corners of the known world. For a fee, the resident scholars will teach students any number of subjects, including magic. However, to gain access to the more powerful spells, one must know the right people and be willing to pay handsomely. There are also a few secret societies such as the Society of the Black Hand that teach members secret magical rites that they may further the goals of the society. Membership in such a group should not be taken lightly, as the consequences could be fatal.

 

. . . and of course, one could always try an convince a powerful wizard to accept an apprentice, though one risks offending said wizard in the process. Most wielders of magic jealously guard their secrets

[Briguy123]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

I like it. The balance problem, IMO, can only be truly curbed by limiting the spells themselves, not by how many points the players can spend on the skill. If you want to keep mages in line with warriors, no spell should have too much more DCs (or equivalent Active Points) than the largest weapon. If a warrior can do maximum 10 DC (2-handed sword+extra STR+martial arts maneuver), then there should be no such thing as a 12d6 6" radius fireball spell. Perhaps there could be a 12d6 EB (no area, with some lims), or a 6d6 EB Area, etc.

 

Unless you want all players to eventually become mages.

 

I like having the occasional Spell O' Doom. It fits the genre. However, I would require that casting such a spell requires both supreme effort (i.e. x5 endurance, lots of extra time to cast, rare ingredients, and possibly the participation of more than one caster) and extreme risk (i.e. Major side effects that reach a catastrophic level if the spell is miscast).

 

The local villagers are revolting against the unjust taxes levied by Spanky the Death Lord and many have gathered around his tower to express their displeasure ("Death to Spanky . . . rah, rah, rah!"). However, Spanky knows the Horrible Cant of Exsanguination, which causes hordes of people to weep blood. It requires an hour of torturous chants by himself and several acolytes who have been annointed with the blood of a wrongfully executed man. When Spanky casts the spell, he automatically loses 2d6 ego that must be healed as if it were actual damage (such lore should not be known by mortals). If Spanky fails to cast the spell correctly he is temporarily blinded (recover at the GM's discretion) and loses 3d6 body from weeping blood for several hours. Spanky has his fingers crossed!

 

PC's will be limited to one spell of such scope and power, and obtaining such lore would require a major quest. Otherwise, spells must follow campaign damage limits. Non-combat spells will be reviewed by the GM on a case by case basis. ("No, you cannot have a detect-and-analyze-all-unguarded-treasure-within-a-twelve-mile-radius spell!").

 

I realize it will take alot of effort on the GM's part to maintain balance, but I think my method will lend itself to developing magic that has personality.

[Briguy123]

Re: Just a Thought...

 

Originally posted by Lucius

Just some off the cuff ideas....

 

Require a Perk as well as the skill. The more spent on the Perk, the more active points can be accessed. Possibly require different perks for different "schools" or types of magick.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

(-: :-)

 

I like! Considered your ideas stole . . . borrowed.

[PhilFleischmann]

Yes. Those severe limitations should work for balancing well enough. Though I would still offer one suggestion:

 

Call the Death Lord something other than Spanky.

 

I'm reminded of I guy I used to play deendee with decades ago whose character names all ended with the letter y: Snippy, Blippy, Snoppy, Flubby, etc.

[Legendsmiths]

We've been kicking around a similar idea, but in the interest of balance this is what we came up with.

 

Magic is a VPP, but the "world" pays the cost of the pool, just as the "world" pays the cost of weapons and armor.

 

Mages have to pay for the control cost, to which they can apply limitations.

 

Spells are learned as 1 pt "uncommon weapon familiarities".

 

No spell can exceed the AP cost of the pool as dictated by the control cost.

 

Requires Skill Roll isn't used. Substitute "Side Effects only on crit failure" instead. This makes magic reliable, and more like a common attack. Optionally, require mages to have a focus without which they need to make a standard Magic Skill roll (with -1/10 AP as usual; CSLs may be added).

 

Haven't played with it, but I imagine overally it would work quite nicely. Perhaps there is something here you can chew on as well.