Want to critique?

[StormGathering]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm a long-time lurker, first-time poster.

 

I was hoping that some of you might be able to help me develop, streamline and/or fix a rudimentary magic system that I'm hoping to add to a near-future setting I'm working on. I was inspired in part by the excellent thread http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44909 in the FANTASY HERO forum, but my plans are a little less ambitious.

 

I just wanted to create a skeletal structure upon which spells could be designed. As the spells get more powerful (ie costing more AP) the requisite limitations would grow increasingly onerous. What I was specifically hoping for was that you could comment where you think the burdens are TOO excessive or not extensive enough.

 

Please note: This magic system is not good or neutral but very, very evil. Magic is controlled largely by an enormous American cultlike religious organization, the Reverend Wayne's Pearly Gates (thanks Snow Crash), which is a bit like the McDonald's meets bad horror movies of religions. Spellcasters must either be acolytes of the church or sanctioned by it; independent spellcasters who reach a certain level of power will usually be torn to pieces by frenzied worshippers, directed by the church which fears this threat to its power. To increase in casting ability one must have easy access to... certain criminal elements who specialise in... well, you'll see.

 

Limitations placed on spells

 

10+ Active Points

Spell* (-1/4) This is a setting-specific limitation. Its purpose is 1) to give a player a reason to define their Power FX as that of a "spell" and 2) to award some points back for the very real ramifications that spellcasting carry in this world.

Gestures (-1/4)

 

30+ Active Points

Incantations (-1/4)

 

45+ Active Points

Extra Time (-1/4) Delayed segment

Skill roll required: Magic (-1/4; -1/20 AP)

 

60+ Active Points*

Extra time (-1/2)

Focus (-1 minimum limitation)

Concentration; 0 DCV (-1/2)

 

*60 AP is the point at which non-spell powers are going to usually be capped in this campaign. So this is where the restrictions begin to become more onerous, for the sake of fairness to any non-spellcasting PCs.

 

90+ Active Points

Extra time (-1/2)

Limited Power OR Side Effects (-1/2 minimum)

Arrangement (-1/4)

 

120+ Active Points

Focus (Human being; expendable)

END limitations (-1 minimum)

Side Effects and/or Limited Power (-1 minimum)

Extra Time (-2 minimum; 5 minutes)

Skill roll required: Magic (-1/2; -1/10 AP)

 

150+ Active Points

Extra Time (-3 minimum; 1 hour)

 

175+ Active Points

Extra Time (-3 1/2 minimum; 6 hours)

Focus (1 person per 25 AP of spell; expendable)

 

200+ Active Points

Extra Time (-4 1/2 minimum; 1 Week)

Limitations on "Stop Sign" and "Caution symbol" powers removed... for the most part

Focus (1 child per 25 AP of spell; expendable)

 

300+ Active Points

Extra Time (-5 minimum; 1 Month)

 

350+ Active Points

Ummm... God help you here. We'll worry about this when we get to it.

 

General notes

 

All spellcasters with at least __ CP of spells (I'm thinking 70+) must take a really nasty 0-point Dependence. The time increment decreases as the character grows in power. Please see below.

 

70 CP of spells

Dependence: ritual murder of an innocent human being

Adverse side effects: -2 to Skill rolls per time increment; 2d6 damage per time increment as the sorceror's soul painfully disintegrates

Time increment: 1 month at start

 

110 CP

Time increment: 3 weeks

 

140 CP

Time increment: 2 weeks

 

170 CP

Time increment: 1 week

 

200 CP

Time increment: We'll probably never reach this far.

 

Characters may also Push powers to decrease/ignore limitations. For each -1/4 ignored in this way, the requisite skill roll is penalized by 1.

 

Annnnd... that's all I have so far. If limitations at certain power levels seem too strict, or not strict enough, please say so. I'm open for suggestions. It isn't so much "flavor" I'm looking for but a solid setup. In particular I'm worried about the Extra Time limitations. I'm also worried that the human sacrifices might come too early in a PC's spellcasting career... but the level of this campaign is Powerful Hero to start, so maybe I'm just crazy.

 

I would also like advice on:

 

A framework for "advancing" from one Active Point level to the next. How many 30-59 AP spells should a character need before being allowed access to the next level?

 

What would a good minimum CP/spell guideline be?

 

Having never really played a HERO campaign, I can't say.

 

Thank you in advance.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Want to critique?

 

I can't speak for your players. To me, however, the fact that magic ultimately and inevitably leads to the need to commit cold-blooded murder seems like it would indicate magic is, by its nature, an evil art, best relegated to villainous NPC's, and not used by heroic PC's.

 

I would also expect the general public to have an inherent prejudice against spellcasters if the need for ritual killing at higher levels of power (or even versatility) is known. Even if the specifics aren't common knowledge, one would expect that spellcasters and murders would become linked as various spellcasters are caught in their monthly to weekly rituals through history.

[Talon]

Re: Want to critique?

 

Setting aside the moral issues, I think that if you're going to use that much Extra Time you're talking non-combat spells, so you'll see a lot of a) "curses" (as in, spells that can effect a foe not present) and long-duration enhancement spells. How you handle the allowed durations for those spells will be critical. Can a caster spend 5 minutes to set up a Force Field that will run for a month? I would suggest tying a maximum duration to each AP level (perhaps as part of the Spell Limitation).

 

I'm also blanking on what Arrangement is.

 

For advancement, I wouldn't make it based on accumulation of powers, but rather status within the organization. In order for them to reveal secrets of the next order, you have to do stuff for them. (A brilliant character could discover some of this on his own, but that would require very high skills and a lot of research.)

 

I assume that your players are OK with this sort of magic system (or are all planning to play non-mages)...I don't think it would be a good idea to surprise them with this if they are expecting to play magic using characters.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Want to critique?

 

I'm also blanking on what Arrangement is.

An Adder on the Focus Limitation. 5ER p293/FREd p188

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Want to critique?

 

I think there should be some choices along the way. You could just say that a spell of X AP must have X amount of limitations. You could also say all spells need a real cost of less than X, then you don't need to make a table. Now, you probably don't want the players taking just any limitation. When given the choice to sacrifice a child or go to 0 DCV while casting, it's an obvious choice. So, you could provide a list of available limitations. Beyond a certain AP, they'd be forced to start taking the gruesome ones since that's all that's left.

[The Monster]

Re: Want to critique?

 

Antoher way to handle this is to make all or most spells (say, anything over 20 Active) run off an END Reserve. This END Reserve recharges only by taking life; say it takes the EGO points of the sacrificed being and turns it into an equal point-value of END, or some such. Then you have a powerful incentive to kill things - people being the most useful things to kill - while still allowing for a "dabbler" to avoid becoming a hardcore murderer (which is usually the kind of thing "dark" PCs want to do; use the bad guy's powers to fight evil without becoming outright evil).

[The Monster]

Re: Want to critique?

 

Oh, and some other thoughts:

 

I don't know if I'd give them that "Spell" disad. What I would give them is a required Watched/Hunted disad, which gives them points and emphasizes that nobody really like what they're doing: either the "Church" watches or hunts them down for being too powerful, or society watches/hunts them for being just icky (think of what society might do if Goths were discovered to be really engaging in routine satanic rituals and murder - any wearing too much black would be harassed).

 

Oh, and make Skill Roll a must from the beginning. It just doesn't feel right without it.

 

I like the required progression of limitations, especially Extra Time. What I might suggest is to allow more player choice: at certain levels, they must take a minimum level of Extra Time, as per your chart, and have a total of x amount of other limitations, perhaps from a short approved list. Then, if they want to take Incantations instead of Gestures, or even take a Focus instead, they can do that - but by the time they reach higher power levels, they'll pretty much have to pile on the whole list to qualify.

[Robyn]

Re: Want to critique?

 

When given the choice to sacrifice a child or go to 0 DCV while casting' date=' it's an obvious choice.[/quote']

 

Sacrificing a child in the middle of combat would probably be worse in the combat sense alone than just going to zero DCV, and that's the only time I can imagine a zero DCV being bad. I'd let them sacrifice in advance, just on the possibility they'd need such spells - similar to The Monster's idea about an Endurance reserve, but buying each spell with a single recoverable charge and stating that the conditions for recovering it include the sacrifice of something living. The conditions could also include some ritual time spent to prepare; you could borrow the Amber practice of setting up all but the last few crucial words of the spell, and then letting it "hang" like that, until needed, ready to be released at a moment's notice. This is actually more limiting than a mere Endurance reserve; END can be spent on any power, but if you have to choose which spells you may need, and cannot go back on the lives you have taken just to change your mind, those choices shall be made seldom and wisely.

 

I would let a single sacrifice recharge more than one spell, though. In fact, I'd insist on it - how else could human sacrifice be encouraged, than by making it more rewarding than large numbers of anything else?

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Want to critique?

 

That's what I meant. The obvious choice is 0 DCV. (I know that's what I would prefer if I could cast magic spells.)

[Robyn]

Re: Want to critique?

 

That's what I meant. The obvious choice is 0 DCV. (I know that's what I would prefer if I could cast magic spells.)

 

I think it would depend on the spell. For a non-combat spell, I would probably take 0 DCV (assuming the GM would let me; a Limitation that doesn't limit, etcetera), but for a spell I would need to use in combat, I might make a sacrifice ahead of time. Going to 0 DVC in the middle of combat could very well equal death.