The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

I think you said what I wanted to say' date=' but [i']way[/i] more clearly. With that, what do you think of using the Delayed Effect construction as a way of making sure that not everyone is slinging a gabillion spells a day? Or would you simply go with having them assigning their REAL point values into the pool for each instance of the spell they wish to cast and have them pick and choose?

Not sure exactly what you are asking. In my system they pay the Real Cost of the Spells they have in a particular day from their VPP; my system is a bit non standard in that it allows them their Pool x 3 in Real Cost, but as a trade off the Spells each must have a single Charge.

 

The act of sorting out their VPP for the day is called "Preparing" Spells. The only Spells they can chose from are Spells that they have Learned to their Spell List, and the only Spells they can cast in a given day are the ones Prepared to their VPP. When they cast a Spell its Charge is expended and the Real Cost allocated to that Spell is locked out for the day.

 

The two sample Wizards I linked to previously demonstrate this in action, and the processes by which all of these concepts function are fully described in the Wizardry document -- what Spells are, how they are classified, how they are defined mechanically, how they are Prepared, how they are Learned, and how they are Created.

 

 

If you mean for your own purposes, as stated previously I personally do not like or use Delayed Effect. I find its mechanics to be very sketchy -- a character should not have to be redrafted because they hit some invisible meta-mark that causes a rolling / cascading refactoring to be necessary. That sort of non-orthagonal cascade is simply illogical in a point based game.

 

That aside, I certainly wouldnt attempt to combine VPP and Delayed Effect. The VPP model is robust enough to make Delayed Effect pointless. When you get right down to it, Delayed Effect is really just a lame attempt at a Power Framework using Modifiers instead of a higher level Framework.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

Secondary Point / Clarfication of my dislike for Delayed Effect --

 

Everything you can do w/ Delayed Effect you can do better with a properly defined Trigger, the mechanics of Trigger a) only effect the design of the particular Power Construct they are part of, and further seperate Powers can have different variations of Trigger allowing more diverse modeling of effects.

 

The exact functionality of Delayed Effect is managed by an "At Will" (+1/2) Trigger, and more narrow Triggers are also possible where they make more sense.

 

Additionally, not germane in a 1 Charge per Spell System, but very noteworthy in other Magic Systems, Triggers can be self resetting which allows for some very cool Power builds.

 

Another issue I have w/ Delayed Effect is that it is, in many ways, more of a Limitation than an Advantage, yet it is priced as an Advantage. Consider the subtext -- you can only use Delayed Effect if the GM has put an (arbitrary) limit on how many Spells a character can have per day. Looked at the other way, to use Delayed Effect as an intrical part of a Magic System they must first define an arbitrary limit on how many Spells per day a person can cast -- for no point rebate. Then, to tap into it, those spell casters must further apply a SCALING advantage to their Spells. So basically they are paying for DRAWBACK. Thats ANTIHERO in my book.

 

 

Further, to illustrate the mathematical stupidity of Delayed Effect, unless the GM sets some completely flat number that applies globaly (which has its own logical shortcomings), you create a state where from spellcaster to spellcaster the cost of the same Spell and potentially other abilities can have widely different costs.

 

Lets pretend that the limit is the defaulted INT/5 assumption. Based on that, a character with 10 INT can slot up two Spells at a time, which I call "floating" -- ie, they can have two Spells for which they have already conducted the various prepartions for (Incant, Gesture, Concentrate, etc). However, if they want to cast a spell on the fly, they have to open up one of those slots.

 

 

Example 1:

 

Im going to do this with simple math and not get into minutiae of Power builds....lets pretend our spellcaster is named Wizzo and he has 10 Spells, and just to make the math easy we'll pretend like they all have the same Active Points and a Real Cost over -1 (ie a cost equal to half the Active Points).

 

 

 

All the Spells have 50 AP and 25 RC. Assuming that these Spells had no other Limitations on them aside from 1 level of Delayed Effect for +1/4, they all have 40 point available for base effects.

 

At any given time Wizzo can float two of them, and to cast one of the others he must first deactivate one of those Spells. This "privelege" has cost him some value judgement of between 50 character points (5 extra RC per Spell) on one end and a 100 Active Points of effect on the other. This is in addition to the simple cost of the Spells in the first place which they can only use two at a time, mind you.

 

Without the arbitary limit of INT/5 Spells (for which the character gets no discounting or break), the same number of character points would be far (far far) more effective. But we'll ignore that for now.

 

Now Wizzo wants to be able to float four Spells at once -- he must either refactor all of the Spells or else raise his INT.

 

To refactor all 10 Spells to a +1/2 Delayed Effect costs Wizzo an extra 50 character points for very little net benefit. To raise his INT costs a mere 10 points. Granted, it may not make sense that Wizzo just went from being kind of a dull fellow to being more attentive and alert than a wolverine, but whatever -- logic is not this advantages strong point.

 

Raising his INT 10 points over max cost 20 points, so basically it goes like this:

 

Doubling via Delayed Effect: each doubling costs +5 points per Spell, or 50 character points per doubling. At 10 INT it costs 50 to get to 4, but at 20 INT it costs 50 to get to 8. So we'll assume this is done -- we are at +60 points for 8 Spells. 16 Spells costs another +50, so a total of +110 gets you to 16 Spells.

 

Doubling via INT: once the character has hit NCM, it costs 20 points per 10 INT. Spending 110 points on INT instead of Delayed Effect gets you to 70 INT, which is 14 Spells and a really nice PER check.

 

So right off the bat, we're seeing a lot of points being thrown around which dont do anything of themselves (the Spells, you'll note, still have their paltry 40 points of effect and are the same 10 Spells we started with). Further the sheer scale of what it takes to improve the casters abilities, either by paying more and more for the same crappy boring abilities or jacking INT up well past absurd levels. So lots of overhead, limited character growth, and a meta concept pushing a characters build into an extremely skewed direction.

 

I could go on and on at different point scales and mixing up the number and variagation of the Spell set, but I think Ive demonstrated the central flaw here sufficiently.

 

 

Example 2:

 

We know how Wizzo is designed; 10 Spells of 50 AP and 25 RC with Delayed Effect for 2 Spells and 20 INT.

 

Now we meet Starro, another spellcaster of the same sort. Starro has 5 smaller Spells with 45 AP and 30 RC, 10 INT, and Delayed Effect x 2 for 4 Spells (ignore the character designer going with concept over the easy +10 INT which this modifier makes him an idiot for not using).

 

Wizzo wants to learn one of Starro's spells. However, he only needs Delayed Effect x 1 so a) the Power needs to be refactored and it costs Wizzo 8 points less for the EXACT SAME EFFECT.

 

Starro wants to learn one of Wizzo's spells. However he needs Delayed Effect x 2 so a) the Power needs to be refactored and it costs Starro 5 points more for the EXACT SAME EFFECT (the same 5 points that would give him an INT of 15 and increase his spellcasting capacity, but whatever).

 

 

To take it a little further, both Wizzo and Starro have relatively simple Spells with no other Advantage than Delayed Effect on them. Now lets get specific. Wizzo has an 8d6 Energy Blast Spell, Starro has a 2d6 RKA Spell. They meet Stupundo who has 5 INT and a 6d6 EB Spell with Delayed Effect x8, and -1 in Limitations -- so 30 base, 60 AP, 30 RC.

 

Stupundo teaches both Starro and Wizzo his spell. It costs Starro 25 points and Wizzo 19 points.

 

Again, I could go on showing more extreme swings, but I think the point is clear -- because this model is Advantage based and scaling, variations between the relative AP totals of spells as well as the effect of larger and smaller Delayed Effect doublings between characters have a huge swing on the cost to effect ratio between any two spellcasters. I.e. -- the COST EFFECTIVENESS of the exact same abilities possesed by characters using the Delayed Effect model vary widely.

 

 

 

Of course in reality all characters in such a system would be practically forced by darwinism to have the highest possible value in whatever characteristic(s) the number of spells per day was based on, for both yet more costs and also the complete loss of either individual identity and of course suspension of disbelief. And further, even when this does happen (which is bad), the bizarre math inequities are still there (which is worse).

 

 

Personally, I find this to be absolutely borked, but whatever; other peoples mileage may vary.

[Steve]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

The argument against using Delayed Effect that KS puts forth is pretty much why I suggested having it as an invisible (and free) part of the magic system Thia is putting together. No recosting of spells will ever be required, since it is effectively a +0 Advantage under the system. There is still the issue of a characteristic controlling the number of spells available, but a flat number would fix that easily enough, like 2 or 3. The mechanics simply act to control the number of higher-powered spells by means of a metagame effect, one that imports the concepts of Delayed Effect and maximum number of spells per day without actually costing it into the numbers. As the spellcaster grows more powerful, their lower-powered spells become easier to cast, and can be cast more often.

 

The Talent I suggested simply controls the maximum Active Points a character can throw around in a spell. It could just as easily be costed at 1/2 the Active Points, 1/3, or whatever divider the GM feels is fair and reflects the ease and power of magic in his campaign. You could also use a straight VPP as well, or a modified VPP structure like KS suggests.

 

I personally feel that a Talent approach combined with an Endurance Reserve allows for better magical flexibility, since I personally dislike the wargaming aspects of a more D&D/Jack Vance style fixed spell list. However, that's just this GM's opinion.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

If the idea of Delayed Effect is tossed in for free w/o the need for an actual Advantage then its not really "Delayed Effect" its just how a Magic System is defined.

 

I have several Magic Systems that basically just state how they work without recourse to the published rules for their core mechanic, particularly the various Skill based Magic Systems.

 

There is nothing wrong with this so long as pains are taken to be internally consistent and fairly priced within the context of the setting they are used in.

 

However, for a GM new to the system it might not be advisable to go haring off into the bushes making up a purely custom system when they don't even have a firm grasp on what is already available yet.

 

It might be better to stick to something that is at least mostly grounded in official rules just to cut the teeth on. Once the comfort level is there w/ the well-established rules the GMs ability to forge off into new territory and still maintaining some semblence of coherency is better supported.

 

Also, there is another consideration -- the most important of all considerations when pitching an idea to other people -- REMEMBER YOUR AUDIENCE.

 

 

Bringing people into the HERO System from D&D is like bringing die hard MAC users into a LINUX environment. It helps to have an emulator and some GUIs.

 

Ive probably brought more people over from D&D to the HERO System either directly or vicariously than anyone else (I've got to be on the top 5 list at least), and one thing Ive learned by repitition is that its the CULTURE SHOCK that is the killer, far more than the LEARNING CURVE that most people tout as the HERO Systems downfall.

 

It is absolutely imperative to get buy in from the players and minimize the culture shock of coming from a slick, color printed, prepackaged, class & level, glorified board game where almost every major decision is made for them by predetermined design elements into a complicated, math driven, function over form, grognard oriented SYSTEM where almost NO decisions are made for you, up to and including how precisely to make a particular well-known trope of a character type.

 

Anything that does this is inherently valuable from a recruiting / retention perspective.

 

 

 

Now, personally, of all the Magic Systems Ive written up on my site, my favorites are probably Magecraft, Aeldenaren, Spellweaving, and the Spontaneous version of Vancian (as typified by Sorcery).

 

However, for groups coming from a D&D background, Vancian is a comfortable model. They are familiar with how it works, the strategic concerns of choosing Spells to memorize, the tactical concerns of choosing Spells to prepare, Incantations et al, and the general archetype of the D&D style spellcaster. This is a known quantity. A touchstone if you will. A rock to cling to in the strange and crazy new world of a Fantasy campaign run in that strange math-pg the GM's got a hair up his *** about.

 

In other words, many players coming over from D&D want the nice warm safe wooby of their recognizable vancian Magic system. And if ones goal is converting them over to the HERO System and retaining them as players, then a close enough conversion of such a magic system is a useful plank to nail into your platform.

 

Other players of course are more flexible and want to come into the HERO System and see what it can do. They will welcome some alternate take on how to do Magic, and for them the ability to whip one up on demand will be a feature rather than a confusing do it yourself flaw.

 

The GM needs to understand where their players are at mentally when he brings them over and basically entice / cater to the player's wants if he wants them to make the changeover. After the initial meatgrinder, some will stick, some (no matter what you do) wont, and you might get some new players out of the bargain by word of mouth or active recruitment. But trying to get that initial start up off of a "forget everything you know and possibly like about RPGs, cuz yer in HEROLand now!" hard sell is capital T tough.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

Originally Complained About by Thia Halmades

apriori premise: Stupid Atkins diet. I wanted an accursed hashbrown, but it was not yet time for the carbtastic goodness. Breakfast is generally pure protein. Curses!

 

Evidently I miss a lot when I'm actually at a game it seems. Good morning! Of the many things that caught my eye, this was a major one:

 

Originally Posted by Killer Shrike

Another issue I have w/ Delayed Effect is that it is, in many ways, more of a Limitation than an Advantage, yet it is priced as an Advantage. Consider the subtext -- you can only use Delayed Effect if the GM has put an (arbitrary) limit on how many Spells a character can have per day. Looked at the other way, to use Delayed Effect as an intrical part of a Magic System they must first define an arbitrary limit on how many Spells per day a person can cast -- for no point rebate. Then, to tap into it, those spell casters must further apply a SCALING advantage to their Spells. So basically they are paying for DRAWBACK. Thats ANTIHERO in my book.

 

I was actually mulling over this myself, because despite having to pay to improve it, in a sense it's almost like a backwards Charge; a Charge is a pendulum mechanic that begins as a disad (only one Charge) and improves to an Advantage (+64 charges, to use FREd's example of the supervillain Lazer, f'rinstance).

 

What I actually want to do is split the difference; I want to have my casters (at least my Wizards) prepping their spells in advance and, as Killer Shrike said, making those tactical decisions. I think I've finally wrapped my head around the pure concept of VPP, to the point where I see its inherent differences compared to both EC and MP. With that said, my current model looks like this:

 

Skill Requirement: All Wizards, either through training or self-teaching, have learned how to wield magick as a tool. Like any tool, it can serve multiple purposes, but magick itself is a science, and a Wizard is a scientist. They are required to have Craft: Arcane as a skill; it governs their ability to learn new spells, understand scrolls, and so on.

 

Skill note two: This magick system makes an assumption; that a wizard is casting in ideal circumstances. Hence, no skill roll is required just to cast the spell. However, the moment those circumstances turn sour (anyone with a held action hits the caster, there's a stiff wind, God sneezes) a skill roll is required to avoid fizzling. That skill is Concentration. When a Concentration roll is made, it's modified by 1/10 the Active Cost of the spell, and any circumstanial modifiers (total BODY taken, etc.)

 

Magic is built on a VPP model; that model breaks from the 'norm' in a number of by-the-book ways. First, it's my understanding that there is normally no limit on what a PC can do with a VPP; they simply consider an effect and bam, it happens. So, first, Only Known Spells may be cast from the VPP (-1). Second, the PC must slot spells into the framework in the morning in terms of Real Points against their available Active Points, and they must sit down with Honkin' Big Book o' Spells (-1/2) in order to change any prepared spells. Also, the magic 'fuel' they have only replenishes after a night's rest (-1/2). Lastly, all spells Must Have One Charge (-1/2), to simulate the ability to memorize and cast multiple instances of the spell, rather than simply slot in "Lightning Bolt" and cast it repeatedly because it's been placed in the framework that morning.

 

Because under a normal VPP there's no limit to the types of spells that a PC can cast, charging them CP for spells is actually redundant under RAW unless I'm being an absolute git; they already 'paid' for the magic, and the pool limits the casting they can do. Ergo, any spell they research (skill roll) or attempt to copy from a scroll (skill roll) or read off someone's tattoo (skill roll) costs no CP; it's simply an extension of the points they paid for the VPP originally.

 

Third. As The Fool had pointed out before, you can divorce the cost between the Active Pool and the Control Pool. Under RAW, the Control Cost * 2 = Active Pool = Most Powerful Spell Known. These are being separated; the PC can improve the Control Pool and learn more powerful magic, or they can improve the VPP and cast more often. Any points spent on the VPP to improve it may be spent (* 3) to purchase new spells.

 

I need to draft something like research rules to cover the mage's ability to create new spells.

 

I think that's everything so far; I think. I may be missing something in my initial breakdown, but it looks normal.

 

Insofar as to what Killer Shrike was saying in terms of HERO being an MPG (Math Playing Game) that the DM (moi) has a hair up his **** about, yeah, the one person who'll get the magic system has been resistant because he has great stats in d20 and those will either go away or have to be paid for; I'm comfortable with that. He's not, but I am. One of the things I was also concerned about was how many spells he had in d20, but that isn't as much of a concern in HERO.

 

I'm considering giving him his (Active Pool * 2) in Real Points for memorization purposes, to come fairly close to simulating a d20 pool, but I haven't settled on that yet.

 

I've been able to sell just about everyone on the idea simply by advent of pointing out that most of them are distressed with d20 because they have to contort things to get what they want, whereas HERO and its floating math system allow all sorts of insanity because you have access to the Source Code that wrote the game in the first place. That's the major advantage, really.

 

Thoughts?

 

Good morning!

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

Skill Requirement: All Wizards, either through training or self-teaching, have learned how to wield magick as a tool. Like any tool, it can serve multiple purposes, but magick itself is a science, and a Wizard is a scientist. They are required to have Craft: Arcane as a skill; it governs their ability to learn new spells, understand scrolls, and so on.

 

Skill note two: This magick system makes an assumption; that a wizard is casting in ideal circumstances. Hence, no skill roll is required just to cast the spell. However, the moment those circumstances turn sour (anyone with a held action hits the caster, there's a stiff wind, God sneezes) a skill roll is required to avoid fizzling. That skill is Concentration. When a Concentration roll is made, it's modified by 1/10 the Active Cost of the spell, and any circumstanial modifiers (total BODY taken, etc.)

Actually, if you read the CONCENTRATION Limitation, you'll see that there is already coverage of that sort of thing to some extent. I also discuss it in this document under "CONCENTRATION":

 

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

 

 

Magic is built on a VPP model; that model breaks from the 'norm' in a number of by-the-book ways. First, it's my understanding that there is normally no limit on what a PC can do with a VPP; they simply consider an effect and bam, it happens.

 

I think this is one of the areas where you're understand of VPP's needs a little work.

 

By DEFAULT a VPP with nothing on the Control Cost allows a Player to put any kind of non-Special Power they want into their VPP if they can fit it in the available AP / RC square model. It takes time and a Skill Roll to do this however.

 

However, such a vanilla VPP is very rare in practice. Almost every VPP has some sort of limit on it, and some have Advantages to make the ability to change Spells in and out either easier or faster or both.

 

Most VPP's at least have an "Only Y SFX" which is usually -1/4, but can be more if the SFX is particularly narrow.

 

A VPP that can be changed at will immediately with no chance of failure has a total of +2 in Advantages on its Control Cost -- so that the Control Cost actually costs MORE than the Pool if no Lims are applied to it. This is called a "COSMIC" VPP in comman parlance. VPPs that are almost this open can be thought of as being "Partially Cosmic". For instance a Cosmic VPP with a "Only Y SFX" as its only Lim is essentially a Cosmic VPP in practice, but it isnt quite as wide open as a true Cosmic VPP which will occasionally be an issue.

 

Basically what Im trying to impart here is that it is pretty much expected that the GM or the Player will NOT have perfectly vanilla X Pool and X/2 Control Cost with the standard time and skill roll to change Powers in and out.

 

 

So, first, Only Known Spells may be cast from the VPP (-1).

This is a rather large Lim for that effect. -1/2 would be far more typical for this, and if there is no limit on number of Known Spells, just some soft filter such as having to learn them w/ some amount of study its really not worth more than -1/4.

 

Second' date=' the PC must slot spells into the framework in the morning in terms of Real Points against their available Active Points, and they must sit down with [i']Honkin' Big Book o' Spells[/i] (-1/2) in order to change any prepared spells.

This is basically double dipping w/ the previous Lim. Their Book O Spells and Known Spells overlap considerably, with the Book of Spells available representing a subset (or possibly ALL) of their Known Spells.

 

I went with:

* Only Change Spells With Spell Book & Study Time (-1/2)

 

which is a much more realistic guage of how much the Spell Book / prep time limits a caster of this sort.

 

 

Also' date=' the magic 'fuel' they have only replenishes after a night's rest (-1/2). [/quote']

 

This is a non-Lim. Charges already do this.

 

I.e., technically a spellcasters Charges would reset from day to day, so they would be able to cast spells even if they couldnt prepare new ones from day to day, they would just be stuck with the same allocation until they could change it.

 

Lastly, all spells Must Have One Charge (-1/2), to simulate the ability to memorize and cast multiple instances of the spell, rather than simply slot in "Lightning Bolt" and cast it repeatedly because it's been placed in the framework that morning.

 

Personally, after giving this a lot of consideration and testing, I settled on -1/4 as closer measure for how limiting this actually is. However, this one is purely a judgement call.

 

IME this is not more limiting than a mild "Only Y SFX" Lim and thus -1/4. Of course, that is with the RC x 3 allowance I make for the Prepared / Wizardry model. If the limit on the VPP is still just the RC then a greater Lim value would be appropriate for this.

 

Because under a normal VPP there's no limit to the types of spells that a PC can cast, charging them CP for spells is actually redundant under RAW unless I'm being an absolute git; they already 'paid' for the magic, and the pool limits the casting they can do. Ergo, any spell they research (skill roll) or attempt to copy from a scroll (skill roll) or read off someone's tattoo (skill roll) costs no CP; it's simply an extension of the points they paid for the VPP originally.

Yes, that is the point of a VPP. Previously I went into a detailed analysis of the differences between the cost effectiveness of characters using the Prepared, Gestalt, and Spontaneous models for Vancian Magic on my site, in which I pointed out that the two VPP based versions (Prepared and Gestalt) have a higher costs of entry but purely rising returns, while the MP based Spontaneous version is efficient to get into but gets more and more expensive with each Spell and Spell Level added and its cost to effectiveness ratio falls off.

 

That is the strength of the VPP square model -- you spend points to expand the square in two directions (X and Y) simultaneously. Both the AP and total RC expand. If not using Lims (or using them mildly) this isnt as apparant, but in a SPELL paradigm with a lot of activation Lims like Incant, Gestures, Extra Time, Concentration (the most usual suspects), this is very noticeable.

 

The VPP based spellcaster pays a flat rate for every strata of Spell -- in my Wizardry System each 15 Pool = a Spell Level, and costs 17.5 points each. The Wizard basically buys ACCESS to an entire new strata of Spells for 17.5 points. Once he's in the actual variety of Spells he can cast is staggering, and they never have to pay another point for another Spell.

 

For instance, the Sample Wizard "Jasper Maskelyne" has paid 106 points for his 90 Pool Wizardry VPP:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/misccharacters/fantasy/Sir%20Jasper%20Maskelyne.HTML

 

Currently he "knows" 40 Spells, none of which cost him a single extra point. If he learns another Spell it costs him nothing:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/misccharacters/fantasy/Sir%20Jasper%20Maskelyne%20Spell%20List.HTML

 

On a given day he can PREPARE up to 270 Real Cost worth from those 40 Spells, the exact combination of which is irrelevant. (Normally it would be 90 Real Cost, without the RC * 3 allowance I make for the Prepared model)

 

Meanwhile non-VPP based (or VPP-like) Magic Systems require greater and greater commitments of points for extra effect.

 

At some point along the point band, which is determined relative to the general power level of the campaign and must be considered against other Magic Systems, the VPP casters investment pays off and their flat cost to grow their VPP becomes LESS EXPENSIVE on average than buying numerous Spells of equivalent AP seperately.

 

This is why VPP based casters with low points are struggling, while VPP based casters with a lot of points are very dangerous.

 

Third. As The Fool had pointed out before, you can divorce the cost between the Active Pool and the Control Pool. Under RAW, the Control Cost * 2 = Active Pool = Most Powerful Spell Known. These are being separated; the PC can improve the Control Pool and learn more powerful magic, or they can improve the VPP and cast more often. Any points spent on the VPP to improve it may be spent (* 3) to purchase new spells.

 

Youre trailing off again here. The Pool available is not in anyway affected by the Control Cost, it is the other way around. The base of the Control Cost is determined by the Pool / 2. In a vanilla VPP you could multiple the CC by 2 and get the same number as the Pool but this is just a mathematical reversal -- the Pool is the origin not the other way around. Once you apply a single modifier to the Control Cost this ceases to be true.

 

The Pool is a seperate entity and is never modified.

 

When you grow a VPP you dont grow the CC and have it expand the Pool; you grow the Pool and it changes the base cost of the CC.

 

The "Spell Level" that you can fit into a VPP is determined by the size of the Pool and how you are defining a a "Spell Level". Regardless, its the ACTIVE POINTs of an individual Spell that matter -- if its less than or equal to the Pool then it can fit into the VPP; if its even one point more than the Pool it doesnt fit into the VPP.

 

I need to draft something like research rules to cover the mage's ability to create new spells.

The Wizardry doc has detailed rules on a method to learn Spells, as well as Create them. You might consider that as a starting point for whatever youre doing w/ your system.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

Actually, if you read the CONCENTRATION Limitation, you'll see that there is already coverage of that sort of thing to some extent. I also discuss it in this document under "CONCENTRATION":

 

I did read it, but it only seems to halve the DCV of the caster while in the process of casting. Out of curiosity, other than a Held Action, can someone abort to nail a caster in mid incant, or is that part & parcel of a subset of Concentration (-1/4)?

 

By DEFAULT a VPP with nothing on the Control Cost allows a Player to put any kind of non-Special Power they want into their VPP if they can fit it in the available AP / RC square model. It takes time and a Skill Roll to do this however.

 

I was actually blending my comprehension of the default structure (cough up anything) with the limitation "only known spells" thus keeping the PC from "coughing up anything." I actually think I get this, although no where near the clarity that you do, I'm at least on the boat. In the back. In the luggage compartment. Where for no apparant reason I'm having more fun than the people with a googleplex of money on deck. But I'm on the ship.

 

No iceberg! No iceberg!

 

Basically what Im trying to impart here is that it is pretty much expected that the GM or the Player will NOT have perfectly vanilla X Pool and X/2 Control Cost with the standard time and skill roll to change Powers in and out.

 

I actually get this, but my ability to confer my understanding is still off because my skill with the lexicon is only decent, and not yet "good." I know that the PC in general will do everything possible to push down their cost for their Control Pool.

 

This is a rather large Lim for that effect. -1/2 would be far more typical for this, and if there is no limit on number of Known Spells, just some soft filter such as having to learn them w/ some amount of study its really not worth more than -1/4.

 

Now that I grasp more of the interplay of mechanics, all of your math is making more sense every day. I'll likely use your strata to save myself confusion, if you don't mind.

 

I went with:

* Only Change Spells With Spell Book & Study Time (-1/2)

 

which is a much more realistic guage of how much the Spell Book / prep time limits a caster of this sort.

 

 

 

 

This is a non-Lim. Charges already do this.

 

I.e., technically a spellcasters Charges would reset from day to day, so they would be able to cast spells even if they couldnt prepare new ones from day to day, they would just be stuck with the same allocation until they could change it.

 

Charges = doi. Mea culpa.

 

Yes, that is the point of a VPP. Previously I went into a detailed analysis of the differences between the cost effectiveness of characters using the Prepared, Gestalt, and Spontaneous models for Vancian Magic on my site, in which I pointed out that the two VPP based versions (Prepared and Gestalt) have a higher costs of entry but purely rising returns, while the MP based Spontaneous version is efficient to get into but gets more and more expensive with each Spell and Spell Level added and its cost to effectiveness ratio falls off.

 

As Archon said at one point (or possibly The Fool) this is going zoom still, but partly because you're using your own lingo from your own constructions. I think so far I've struck on the whole "don't charge them for spells" concept and we're all on board with that. That's good! I are pleased.

 

That is the strength of the VPP square model -- you spend points to expand the square in two directions (X and Y) simultaneously. Both the AP and total RC expand. If not using Lims (or using them mildly) this isnt as apparant, but in a SPELL paradigm with a lot of activation Lims like Incant, Gestures, Extra Time, Concentration (the most usual suspects), this is very noticeable.

 

I think I get this, but won't try to reiterate. I'll just soak my brain in it a bit. I'll return to this later.

 

The VPP based spellcaster pays a flat rate for every strata of Spell -- in my Wizardry System each 15 Pool = a Spell Level, and costs 17.5 points each. The Wizard basically buys ACCESS to an entire new strata of Spells for 17.5 points. Once he's in the actual variety of Spells he can cast is staggering, and they never have to pay another point for another Spell.

 

Yes, this. This is about the most important thing you've covered so far (for me and what I'm doing), and I think it's the exact same thing I'm on my way to doing; why 17.5? And (pardon) how does it cost a 1/2 point? I do grasp the tiered concept, but what's the end result? Or do you just have 6 points of lims on the Control Cost so 15 points generated a 2.5 spend on the Control Cost?

 

For instance, the Sample Wizard "Jasper Maskelyne" has paid 106 points for his 90 Pool Wizardry VPP:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/misccharacters/fantasy/Sir%20Jasper%20Maskelyne.HTML

 

Currently he "knows" 40 Spells, none of which cost him a single extra point. If he learns another Spell it costs him nothing:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/misccharacters/fantasy/Sir%20Jasper%20Maskelyne%20Spell%20List.HTML

 

On a given day he can PREPARE up to 270 Real Cost worth from those 40 Spells, the exact combination of which is irrelevant. (Normally it would be 90 Real Cost, without the RC * 3 allowance I make for the Prepared model)

 

Meanwhile non-VPP based (or VPP-like) Magic Systems require greater and greater commitments of points for extra effect.

 

This appears to be exactly what I intended on doing; slotting in the Real Cost of the spell into the VPP Active Points and calling it 'prepared.' I also noticed that you changed up charges to account for longer duration spells; each has one charge, but not all charges are 'instants.' That was pretty awesome, by the way. Just that pool of 40 spells alone is astonishingly varied and gives plenty of reason to have multiple spells available.

 

At some point along the point band, which is determined relative to the general power level of the campaign and must be considered against other Magic Systems, the VPP casters investment pays off and their flat cost to grow their VPP becomes LESS EXPENSIVE on average than buying numerous Spells of equivalent AP seperately.

 

Is there a cut-off point I should be aware of in a Sword & Sorcery campaign to keep them from getting out of hand?

 

This is why VPP based casters with low points are struggling, while VPP based casters with a lot of points are very dangerous.

 

I'd like to avoid "very dangerous" and anything past "very dangerous." This includes "mighty dangerous," "a little too dangerous," and "oh dear God what is that thing" dangerous.

 

Youre trailing off again here. The Pool available is not in anyway affected by the Control Cost, it is the other way around. The base of the Control Cost is determined by the Pool / 2. In a vanilla VPP you could multiple the CC by 2 and get the same number as the Pool but this is just a mathematical reversal -- the Pool is the origin not the other way around. Once you apply a single modifier to the Control Cost this ceases to be true.

 

Elsewhere in this thread is a post by AmadanNaBriona (aka The Fool, as I refer to him) which states: instead of building one and having the cost go into the other, you build both separately, and allow the Control Costs (Active Points * 2) to determine the most powerful spell you can cast. That was the plan, and I thought it made the Control Cost something other than just a tax. It was actually pretty easy to wrap my head around, but I can also concede the argument of saving it for later.

 

The Pool is a seperate entity and is never modified.

 

When you grow a VPP you dont grow the CC and have it expand the Pool; you grow the Pool and it changes the base cost of the CC.

 

Got this. Understood.

 

Wow. This just really, really clarified a lot of what I was already thinking of doing. I think that does it; and astonishingly, it wound up looking almost exactly as how you did it originally. Just took me a lot longer to get there, because I had to understand it for myself before I could employ it.

 

Fantastic. Thank you. Next: Sorcery. Mua ha ha.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

Yes, this. This is about the most important thing you've covered so far (for me and what I'm doing), and I think it's the exact same thing I'm on my way to doing; why 17.5? And (pardon) how does it cost a 1/2 point? I do grasp the tiered concept, but what's the end result? Or do you just have 6 points of lims on the Control Cost so 15 points generated a 2.5 spend on the Control Cost?

Yes, with the modifiers applied to it the Control Cost ends up costing 2.5 points per 15 Pool:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/MagicSystems/wizardry.shtml#WIZARD CONTROL COST

 

However, your Lim math is off; 15 Pool yeilds a Control cost of 7.5 which rounds to 7, and there is a total of -1 3/4 in Lims on the Control Cost.

 

You don't pay a "half point"; normal rounding rules apply. So basically every odd increment of 15 Pool costs 17 points and every even increment costs 18 points.

 

(In reality the Control cost works out to be 2.545454545454545, which is why eventually an extra point creeps in every now and then as the infintesimal remainder aggregates up enough to impact the 1 digit round off).

 

As an aside I personally use Hero Designer to do all my characters anymore, so once the Lims are tapped in on the VPP correctly it tracks the actual cost without me or a player needing to worry about it.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

As far as power level of VPPs -- well, it is relative. As I mentioned, you have to consider it within the context of the setting you are running and other rival means to Power.

 

Personally, I take a broad view. I dont mind a Magic System that struggles in the lower point / early investment strata gets a little uberness going on at the high point / late investment strata. That's a trade off form of balance. But I probably am more comfortable with high end character builds than many GM's are.

 

Also, I tend to err on the side of typical expectation of average usage and accept that in some specific scenarios / circumstances / situations a particular ability set will be more powerful than the typical expectation of use would indicate. Ill run thru some "what ifs" and perhaps hedge against them once I have a solid build, but I dont make them my center of gravity. On the other hand some GMs prefer to conjecture such "what if" scenarios and build things against that (personally I find that to be illogical and cause skewing, but whatever).

 

It is really going to boil down to your comort level as a GM and what you think is "right" for your setting. The best thing you can do, honestly, is make characters at different point levels. That's how I learned the HERO System; by coming up w/ ideas for types of characters and then making specific examples that fall within those types. Often I would run them up against each other to see how they fare in combat, and form weighted judgements to apply against the impact of non-combat abilities.

 

Eventually you develop a feel for average power levels across point strata and can "feel" when a character is above or below that in general at an intuitive level. Plus, with all that mechanical experience under your belt you can dig into the guts of the characters build and quantify your initial "feel" with hard facts.

 

 

At any rate, if you give me two or more specific means to power in detail and a point range I can look at them and give you my thoughts on their relative cost effectiveness, and any disparities I see, but it can't be stated in the abstract because there are too many assumptions and variables involved.

 

 

All that aside, if you are winding up to look into Sorcery, you might want to check out these documents:

 

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/MagicSystems/sorcery.shtml

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/MagicSystems/arcanisMagnicus.shtml

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

Checked the books on Concentration; the passage I was thinking of is actually in Fantasy HERO on page 255, offering the option of allowing a character w/ Concentration to still cast when their Concentration is disrupted if they can make an appropriate Skill Roll of some sort.

 

As far as disrupting a Spellcaster you can never Abort to an ATTACK of any sort. That is explicitly stated in the rules and is a good rule to uphold. However, there are still ways to disrupt a Spellcaster. I detail a good number of them here:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/GeneralSpellRestrictions.shtml#Disruptible Limitations

 

 

In fact, at the risk of inhumility, you might want to just read that entire document from start to finish.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

All things being equal, Killer Shrike, I think you've gone well above & beyond any concerns I may have had about your humility in general. Between your dedicated (although sometimes too advanced for my primitive world) assistance and dogged determination, I've got a magic system that works and, more importantly, that I understand. Finally.

 

I still want to do Sorcery as an EC, but that would involve hand waving to make the powers themselves accessible, and that isn't what an EC is for, which is sad, because it fits my view of what sorcery should be perfectly. However, if I push down the cap too far, the powers either become too common or, not enough, wholly inaccessible. Yeargh.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

Here is an EC system I call Aeldenaren:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/MagicSystems/aeldenaren.shtml

[Thia Halmades]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

So you just used a standard EC, and then charge them in RP straight up for any powers taken within the EC, yeah? No cost break for powers, just the final Real Cost? I was thinking of using the RC/3 rule to make gaining powers reasonable instead of breaking the PC bank. Thoughts?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

So you just used a standard EC' date=' and then charge them in RP straight up for any powers taken within the EC, yeah? No cost break for powers, just the final Real Cost? I was thinking of using the RC/3 rule to make gaining powers reasonable instead of breaking the PC bank. Thoughts?[/quote']

Huh? They get the benefit of the EC framework, which is almost purely an accounting mechanic intended to reduce costs.

 

For starters how do you think EC's work?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

I think an EC works as follows:

 

- Buy EC. All powers within the EC must have an Active Point value equal to or greater than the pool of the EC. The EC stacks with all powers within the EC, adding to their total effective value in terms of Active Points for purposes of determining effects. However, these points are not figured into the build of the power itself.

 

- For example. I have an EC worth 15 points (vanilla). If I buy a 15 point EB (3d6 normal damage, vanilla) it now becomes a 30 point EB (6d6 normal damage) because it stacks with the EC.

 

- I can have a 30 point EB, and it would be worth 45 within the EC.

 

- I cannot have a 10 point EB, because it is less than the point value of the EC.

 

If I'm right, my concern is a matter of points in terms of spells & real cost for the PC. I still want them to have access to a decent array of spells, and that's difficult to do in an EC, and that's what I'm talking about in general.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

Hmm....well yes and no.

Actually, you take some number of Powers (3 or more is ideal), that all must cost END. Apply Advantages to determne Active Points, but do not apply Limitations yet. Take the LOWEST AP of the Powers as a whole, divide by 2.

 

This amount is the control cost of the EC, which the character pays for. This is the "overhead" of this framework.

 

Subtract that amount from the AP of every other Power in the EC, and then apply Limitations. The resulting cost of each Power is the adjusted Real Cost; this is what the character actually pays.

 

 

There are some advantages and disadvantages to ECs, as follows:

 

pros:

a) All the Powers in an EC can theoretically be used simultaneously.

The more Active Points involved, the greater the savings (one of the few cases in the HERO System where something upscales -- an economy by volume)

c) Often in the HERO System you will find that you do not need redundant abilities -- 1 Attack, 1 Defense, 1 Movement Power correctly designed can be better and more powerful than a slew of variant / redundant / overlapping abilities.

d) ECs are really good at demonstrating a concept that is theoretically one Power, but has many "stunts" or applications (which are represented by seperate Power Constructs in the HERO System).

 

cons:

a) Negative adjustments hurt. A lot.

The more points in the EC, the harder it is to add new Powers to it

c) The more points and Powers in the EC, the more complicated upping certain abilities can become

d) Due to the synergistic nature of ECs, there is an opportunity for some mild recursions to occur by raising the lowest Powers AP to up the EC to reduce the cost of other Powers.

 

 

 

Within the context of a Magic System, the straight up divide by 3 Turakian method just outright cuts the throat of an EC -- there is no competition at all. Its one of the many reasons why I personally do not like the divide by 3 method.

 

However, if the Turakian style Magic isnt used, then ECs are a very competitive form of Magic. Taking my Aeldenaren System as an example, it is very possible to design extremely functional and powerful magic users that can compete with other forms of Magic. The sample characters show two very capable Aeldenari from my San'Dora setting at two point ranges, for instance.

 

Such characters are not going to have as MANY different possible effects as maguc users on different systems built on a different economy, but the powers they do have can be very potent -- quality over quantity. Plus, in the case of Aeldenaren, they can use their magic pretty much at will, all day long. and frequency counts for a lot. Also, their powers tend to not be as limited; they arent preformatted SPELLS that work a certain way, they often have some degree of flexibility (and can be designed intentionally to have more flexibility via Variable Advantages / Variable SFX).

[Thia Halmades]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

I'm going to let my player toy with this and see what he comes up with. So you're saying that without the handwaving of a normal caster (Active Points in the VPP * 3 = Real Alloted Points in Spells, for example) that the EC user can directly compare?

 

Hrm. Okay. You've done the math a lot longer than I have, I'll take your word for it.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

I'm going to let my player toy with this and see what he comes up with. So you're saying that without the handwaving of a normal caster (Active Points in the VPP * 3 = Real Alloted Points in Spells, for example) that the EC user can directly compare?

 

Hrm. Okay. You've done the math a lot longer than I have, I'll take your word for it.

 

Uh...no Im saying that if you use the RC / 3 no Framework option for Magic in the published TURAKIAN AGE setting, then Elemental Controls simply cannot compete. If you are not using that Magic System, then EC's are very competitive.

 

The (Active Points in the VPP * 3 = Real Alloted Points in Spells, for example) that you note isnt "normal" -- thats just a special consideration given to my own Wizardry system, and what you have to keep in mind that a character using it has a very large overhead in the form of paying for their VPP, and the various Skills that the System requires the character to have to learn / create Magic that act as both point sinks (a form of Opportunity Cost Control) and an impediment to learning new Spells to the characters Known Spells List (a soft form of Acquistion Control).

 

 

In the SPECIFIC case of the various Magic Systems and their many variants that I created and use in my Setting, Aeldenaren is very competitive. So much so that I used the system for the Magic of the Haelfinan, the Elf analog race that are among the most powerful Magic Users in the setting. One of the most extreme uses of magic in the history of the entire planet was undertaken by a group of Haelfinan Willcrafters (which use Aeldenaren under the hood) for instance.

 

To get down to the nitty gritty, a Magic User using my Wizardry model (which you should be familiar with by now) and an Aeldenaren can both be very capable. Which one is better will vary by circumstance and individual, but in general they are comparable systems.

 

 

Its kind of like Martial Arts. Is karate better than jeet kun do in an objective sense? Who really knows. It really boils down to individual cases.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

Here's an idea...sit down and make a character using the Wizardry guidelines and the Aeldenaren guidelines (and any of the other Magic Systems that catch your fancy) at 125 points.

 

Consider them, decide how they compare, relative pros and cons.

 

 

Make a version with +50 XP, reconsider them.

 

Repeat this process up to whatever point level you want.

 

 

 

The relative strengths and weaknesses, point strata where one works better than the other, and so forth should become clear to you at that point, and the character building experience is useful as well.

 

Here are some Packages Deals that might help:

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Content/PackageDeals/wizardPackages.shtml

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Content/PackageDeals/aeldenarenPackages.shtml

[Archon]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

I'm going to let my player toy with this and see what he comes up with. So you're saying that without the handwaving of a normal caster (Active Points in the VPP * 3 = Real Alloted Points in Spells, for example) that the EC user can directly compare?

 

Hrm. Okay. You've done the math a lot longer than I have, I'll take your word for it.

 

Looks like it's time for another example. Try this.

 

10 EC - Fire Magic Sorcery (20 pts), I, G, OAF various

10 (1) Fire Bolt, 8d6 EB (40 AP)

10 (2) Flame Shields, Force Field (20/20) (40 AP)

8 (3) Wafting, Flight 20" (40 AP), Extra Time - full phase

 

Each slot in the EC applies the Incantations, Gestures, and OAF to its value in addition to any other lims you might use. I said various as OAF must apply to the whole EC but no one ever said the OAF had to be the same for each slot. Add in an attack with variable advantage to cover AOEs, autofire, etc and then all you really do is buy to oddball spells you want. As you can see, it only takes 38 pts to cover most of the spells you'll really ever need. Actually I doubt most of your spells will be 40 AP. Most will probably be less.

 

Now you have to deal with how you'll power it. If you use personal END, your wizards will really scream foul. I recommend aa End Reserve.

 

End Reserve

8 END (80)

2 REC (10), Extra Time - 1 hour(-2), Concentration - 0 DCV throughout(-1)

 

This gives enough END for a good number of effect, but he can't just cast, rest a couple of minutes, cast at full power like you can using personal END.

 

Archon

[Thia Halmades]

Re: The First Hurdle: Creating a *gulp* Magic System

 

To get down to the nitty gritty, a Magic User using my Wizardry model (which you should be familiar with by now) and an Aeldenaren can both be very capable. Which one is better will vary by circumstance and individual, but in general they are comparable systems.

 

Good morning!

 

This is really what I'm talking about, right here. Since I appear to have eventually (though a long and torturous road) found myself using the same VPP structure (or an even less handwaved) one that you do, if a straight EC is going to accomplish the objective of giving a caster flexibility and power, than that's really more in my vision of Sorcery and something that I want to go with.

 

Archon posted a great example; I know the PC is all about doing crazy things and staying within the 'ice' theme, so that makes it that much easier to handle. We have a sit down tomorrow afternoon to do builds and character drafts, and so I can finally sit down and start running through some combat sequences.

 

I'll have more later this afternoon, but work calls, and behold. I answer.