Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

[austenandrews]

I'm pondering the idea of treating spells like weapons and only requiring a WF for a spellcaster to use one. Has anyone tried this? Any thoughts about it?

[Curufea]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

With the generic way of powers, and the way weapons are simulated in Hero - I don't see this as being a problem in any way. The only difference being that spells don't have the focus limitation, but have other limitations instead.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

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

[Markdoc]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

I've never tried this system, except for a brief playtest way way back in the day, but I'd be a bit perturbed about balance. Even if you limit the active points severely so that the highest points available to spells are no greater than a two handed sword or an arbalest (which rules out a lot of spells) I find it hard to see why anyone would play a non-spellcaster.

 

As it stands, WF gives you access to HKA and RKA with a couple of fairly minor limitations/advantages. Most players spend at most 5 points on WF - many only 2 or 3.

 

For example:

 

Fighter - WF:common melee weapons - 2 points, he chooses a longsword and shield, so gets 1 1/2d6 w. STR

 

Mage: SF: Forceblade. 1 pt. No STR min, so he does 2 +1 d6 HKA and still gets to use a shield

SF: Wizard's armour. 1 pt. 8 PD/ED forcefield.

 

In a straight-up fight, mano a mano, the mage is going to clean the fighter's clock. Plus he can buy flight and invisibility for the cost of +1 OCV with a longsword...

 

cheers, Mark

[austenandrews]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

You're right, in that setup it would probably be unbalanced. In terms of "battle spells," using a Spell Familiarity system (I'll call it SF) should be parallel to the "free points" a fighter gets for his weapons. In that case I'd look at the real cost of the spells v.s. the real cost of miscellaneous weapons. If the fighter averages 45 AP with -2 Limitations, the mage should as well. Likewise a fighter is limited by the narrow range of weapon effects and by the inability to carry more than a few different weapons at a time. Some similar counterbalance should apply to the spellcaster. For instance Killer Shrike (thanks KS!) balances with a combination of END cost plus a very small number of spells per caster. And of course, there's the fact that a mage may also employ a fighter's weapons in addition to his spells.

 

For my part, I'm looking at a setup where each spell has a fairly limited range of applicable situations. So there might be a Spell To Ward Off Glamor, a Spell To Ward Off Magical Sleep, etc. Though the AP of each spell may be fairly high, the real cost will be low due to the Limited Power lim. My idea is that each SF: Ward Off X will cost 1 pt, or the spellcaster may purchase SF: Warding Spells for 3 pts (or whatever). That seems more reasonable than charging separately for each spell, and cleaner than an elaborate Multipower or stairstepped "spell levels."

 

Also, in this milieu it's possible for anyone to learn certain charms. For instance (as a cheesy example) if saying a particular rhyme and spitting through your fingers wards off fairy glamor, there's no reason a spellcaster can't impart this knowledge to a fighter. To memorize the spell well enough to be effective, the fighter need only spend 1 pt. In fact, in some cases I may allow the spells to be cast at a disadvantage without SF, which would be analogous to using a weapon without WF.

 

Largely I'm contemplating this system as a solution to the "Kryptonite Man" problem, where it's really the target's vulnerability that causes the magic effect, rather than the caster's power.

[Old Man]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

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

 

hehe I KNEW somebody was going to do this. We just got it from the man himself.

[Lethosos]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

IMO, this kind of setup would work if everyone has some sort of magic in their blood.

 

Think about it...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

IMO' date=' this kind of setup would work if [b']everyone[/b] has some sort of magic in their blood.

 

Think about it...

True, unless you also require other things to cast the spells. For example, a big enough VPP. I've been working for a while with a memorization VPP combined with a 1-point cost per known spell (that is over 10 Active Points). This is like the Str Min requirement of weapons, if you want to keep up the analogy (just a bit more expensive ).

[Markdoc]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

True' date=' unless you also require other things to cast the spells. For example, a big enough VPP. I've been working for a while with a memorization VPP combined with a 1-point cost per known spell (that is over 10 Active Points). This is like the Str Min requirement of weapons, if you want to keep up the analogy (just a bit more expensive ).[/quote']

 

 

Sure - but if you use a VPP, then you are no longer using the skill ssytem described - you are simply controlling what goes into the VPP (which would be fine for a low-magic setting).

 

The base problem with spell familiarity and weapon familiarity is that weapon familiarity buys you essentially HA/HKA/RKA up to a moderate limit. There's a few small advantages you can get, but few people buy more than 4 points of WF for anything other than flavour. Spells, on the other hand run the gamut and even if, by hard GM work, you keep things balanced at first, by requiring prerequisites and such, at some point mages are going to reach a point where 1 XP buys them a 6d6 explosive RKA, or the ability to summon a 600 point monster, or invulnerability to normal weapons and it buys the fighter the abilty to use an atl-atl without penalty.

 

Such a system could work if you have a game where everybody used magic, or a game where spells were carefully vetted by the GM, so that mages could only use spells of limited active points or which were limited in scope.

 

cheers, Mark

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

Such a system can work even if everybody does not do magic. This is the fundamental way magic in Narosia works and has worked very well. Our playtest game has run from 75 point characters to the current 210 point characters and magic has not been unbalanced. I agree that care must be taken in how you approach it, but I think this type of system is especially useful when you want to have lower point games.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

Huh? WF works because there is a predefined list of weapons that you can be familiar with. In a supers game, an agent might be familiar with some normal weapons, but a superguy, has paid full points for his super-tech-zappy-gun.

 

Spell Familiarity works only if there is a similar predefined list of spells, that are of comparable utility to the weapons.

 

Players don't get to say, "I've spent 1 point for familiarity with the Hufarb Sword, which does 6d6K"

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

Set list, limited AP, works fine. The three Familiarity based Magic Systems I have (posted earlier) work very well.

[Furry Fox]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

I can see this working well in a low-powered magic based fantasy game where everyone uses magic and the WF represent standard book of spells and such. Generally I prefer to have Magic-users pay for their spells straight up. While Fighter's may get some equipment freebies being able to use magical effects are a powerful enough incentive to justify the point expenditure IMO.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

I disagree. Fighters can get armor, melee weapons, ranged weapons, tools, and even magic items in most games without points. How is this really any different than mages? There are limitations for Fighters in terms of STR minimums, the "real" aspect of the items, and so on. It is not all that difficult to extend those same concepts to cover magic and even allow for improvisation.

 

It can also be a lot of fun. Shrike's systems work, Narosia works... it can be done. Just think outside the box.

[Curufea]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

That's what I do

Which is why mages in my game can get armor, melee weapons, ranged weapons, tools, and even magic items in most games without points.

 

I don't see the problem with paying points for spells - no character in my games is so restricted and stereotyped that than can do nothing else. But I do use power frameworks for types of magic.

[Fenixcrest]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

I've done spells as Knowledge Skills before, but it was in a campaign where magic, at a basic level, was an Everyhuman (read: normals, too) power.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Spells as "Weapon Familiarities"

 

I disagree. Fighters can get armor, melee weapons, ranged weapons, tools, and even magic items in most games without points. How is this really any different than mages? There are limitations for Fighters in terms of STR minimums, the "real" aspect of the items, and so on. It is not all that difficult to extend those same concepts to cover magic and even allow for improvisation.

 

It can also be a lot of fun. Shrike's systems work, Narosia works... it can be done. Just think outside the box.

Who are you disagreeing with? I certainly never said such a system couldn't work. I'm only saying that you have to be careful not to let Spell Familiarity become too powerful, if you want fighter-types to be viable.

 

A fighter can spend 1 point for Familiarity with Bows, and can then to up to about 2d6 K, assuming he has the necessary STR min.

 

If you let a mage spend 1 point for Familiarity with the Fireball Spell, which does 4d6 K, why would you play a fighter?

 

The maximum AP attack that a fighter can get with a WF should be comparable to the maximum AP spell than a mage can get with a SF. If there's a disparity, then something else needs to compensate. (One such compensation might be a restiction on mages wearing armor, or even using weapons, but that only goes so far, especially if they have access to Force Field spells and the like.)

 

In my FH games, I don't want mages to be walking artilary platforms. I think that was perhaps the most pervasive and insidious harm done by that other game system to the minds of RPGers everywhere - the notion that magic is for making combat monsters that are flashy. I prefer that magic be used for tasks that can't be performed by mundane means. Sure, mages can have attack spells occasionally, but they're primarily Flash, Drain, Entangle, Mind Control, etc., occasionally EB, and almost never KA's. And I usually allow mages to use normal weapons and armor, because that's the standard method of defending yourself.