Divide by 3?

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

At which point I would agree that a /3 rule would be a bit generous. .

 

A bit generous? Heavens - I can't recall ever having seen such an outrageous munchkinism in Hero system. Since many (most) spells already have a fair number of limitations on them this makes powerful spells extremely cheap.

 

It'd need a lot of GM's oversight to keep this under control - the only Turakian age game I know has already imploded under the effect of this magic system (a mage who could shapeshift: somebody or other's spell of the monstrous form, IIRC) - the GM is picking the game up again with new characters and a new magic system drawn from KS's site.

 

cheers, Mark

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

A bit generous? Heavens - I can't recall ever having seen such an outrageous munchkinism in Hero system. Since many (most) spells already have a fair number of limitations on them this makes powerful spells extremely cheap.

 

It'd need a lot of GM's oversight to keep this under control - the only Turakian age game I know has already imploded under the effect of this magic system (a mage who could shapeshift: somebody or other's spell of the monstrous form, IIRC) - the GM is picking the game up again with new characters and a new magic system drawn from KS's site.

 

cheers, Mark

Which one?

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

Don't recall the name offhand (although I'm seeing him this weekend, so I could ask I guess) but it's a quasi D and D style level system.

 

cheers, Mark

[Labrat]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

A bit generous? Heavens - I can't recall ever having seen such an outrageous munchkinism in Hero system. Since many (most) spells already have a fair number of limitations on them this makes powerful spells extremely cheap.

 

It'd need a lot of GM's oversight to keep this under control - the only Turakian age game I know has already imploded under the effect of this magic system (a mage who could shapeshift: somebody or other's spell of the monstrous form, IIRC) - the GM is picking the game up again with new characters and a new magic system drawn from KS's site.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I haven't had any problems with it... but I haven't played with any munchkins since going to the TA magic rules. That's why I like the RSRs, OAFs and Side Effects. It tends to scare away the munchkins.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

Don't recall the name offhand (although I'm seeing him this weekend, so I could ask I guess) but it's a quasi D and D style level system.

 

cheers, Mark

One or more of the Vancian Magic Systems then:

 

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

[Vondy]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

I thought about it and decided I didn't like it. I decided, instead, that each spell would be a skill. I do not asign AP limitations, but circumstances and environs often provide modifiers. To keep players from saying "I spend 3 points on "power word kill"" (just as an example) every mage must have a Power Skill for the relevant kind of magic, and each spell has a -0 Limitation: Requires X Skill Roll.

 

Shrike's skill based method looks pretty good, too. I have to think about it.

[Labrat]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

I think the 'Spell as a Skill' format is in FH as an optional system to consider. I know that Simon added 'Spell' to the Skill list in HD. In the end it sounds more expensive, and thus more restricting. If you were going to do it this way, then maybe consider the Summon-based method outlined in the Valdorian Age... there's a lot of options and they mostly gear towards your preference for how High you want your Fantasy.

[Vondy]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

I think the 'Spell as a Skill' format is in FH as an optional system to consider. I know that Simon added 'Spell' to the Skill list in HD. In the end it sounds more expensive' date=' and thus more restricting. If you were going to do it this way, then maybe consider the Summon-based method outlined in the Valdorian Age... there's a lot of options and they mostly gear towards your preference for how High you want your Fantasy.[/quote']

 

I am happy with the method I use. I have not found it to be too expensive.

[Alcamtar]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

My biggest problem with divide by three is that an 8-point spell ends up costing the same as a 9-point spell. This creates a new "breakpoint" in the system that can be powergamed -- you often can add a die of effect, or add an advantage, or remove a limitation without altering the cost.

 

My fix is as follows: total the cost of all the spell before dividing by three.

 

A more general and interesting solution is to create a High Magic Framework, which is a new framework added alongside EC, MP, and VPP. The HMF is very simple: the cost of the framework is equal to the total real cost of the spells it contains... except that you can apply any limitations common to all spells to the entire framework.

 

For example, if you had spells costing 1,3,4,4,6,7,7,9,10,10,12,13,13,15,16 points, the HMF would cost 130 real points. If the spells all had the common limitation RSR (-1/2), Gestures (-1/2), Incantations (-1/2), and Concentration (-1/2), you get the divide the cost by 3 (43 points, compared to 41 using divide by 3). I'd recommend that if you have a focus as a common limitation, it has to be a single focus that affects all spells in the HMF.

 

There are two advantages to this setup: (1) you cannot powergame the cost of each spell individually, and (2) spell casters are encouraged to create their own style of magic in the form of common limitations. The more specific your style, the more you save. The GM want to put a max limit on common limitations... on the other hand, a highly limited overall style will leave a wizard with huge blind spots that he has no spells to work around.

 

Anyway, there's an idea. :-)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

My biggest problem with divide by three is that an 8-point spell ends up costing the same as a 9-point spell. This creates a new "breakpoint" in the system that can be powergamed -- you often can add a die of effect' date=' or add an advantage, or remove a limitation without altering the cost.[/quote']

 

There are already similar breakpoints for spells with high limitation values. If my spells all have common limitations of -1 1/2, and especially if I add in some limitations for a specific spell, adding some more "oomph" at no point cost is often quite easy, especially for non-attack spells (where I can just add 1 PD to my force field, or 1" of flight, rather than 1d6 at a time). Rounding makes this virtually impossible to avoid.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

Alcamtar: In any system with a cost discount in effect, the overall reduction of points from Limitations is lessened; thus accounting schemes like divide by 3, multipowers, and EC's actually discourage limitations rather than encourage them.

[Cosmosemeritus]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

For my own campaign I spent much time wrangling with the issues of balancing power with point expenditure while also balancing spellcasters with non spellcasters with hybreds. I finally did away with CP cost for spells alltogether. Spellcasters pay for the ability to use magic as one or more talents, then pay for their character's aptitude as one or more skills. Skill roll penalties are determined by the unpaid real point cost of the spell and all spells are written by the GM, even if the PC is researching the spell.

 

The irony is that since working with the players to come up with this system, no one's yet made a spellcaster, so its still untested.

[Cantriped]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

: In any system with a cost discount in effect' date=' the overall reduction of points from Limitations is lessened; thus accounting schemes like divide by 3, multipowers, and EC's actually discourage limitations rather than encourage them.[/quote'][/Quote]

Hmm I would say that ECs and VPPs are the most effected personally. All the MPs I've used have been rather limited. as far as frameworks go anyway. straight powers... yeah I tend to lay off limitations that arn't thematicly amusing for "RP/3" spells. Since the difference in the cost usually isn't worth the value of the limitations in those circumstances.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

Hmm I would say that ECs and VPPs are the most effected personally. All the MPs I've used have been rather limited. as far as frameworks go anyway. straight powers... yeah I tend to lay off limitations that arn't thematicly amusing for "RP/3" spells. Since the difference in the cost usually isn't worth the value of the limitations in those circumstances.

If the Limitations are common to all powers and applied to the Reserve of the MP, then yes -- but note that the impact of the point return is not realized on the slots, it is realized on the Reserve.

 

There is no impetus (other than concept) to place further Lims on individual slots beyond what is on the Reserve because it usually does not save more than a relative few points at best.

[Cantriped]

Re: Divide by 3?

 

Aah, yes I see your point... I usually don't need to though, at least for the MP's I've used in the past.