Divide by Three

[Manic Typist]

I know that in Fantasy Hero it is common to calculate the real cost of a spell, then divide that number by three, and then use THAT as the new real cost for the player to pay.

 

I intend to give this a try, to see how it feels. However, can anyone offer me their opinions/feedback/experiences on this matter?

 

Additionally, should I also divide the real cost of magic ITEMS by three, and then charge the players the new, reduced price? Or is it just the SPELLS? It would be odd if a magic item that did the same thing as a specific spell actually cost MORE than the spell...

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I haven't tried it yet (I may if I go through with my Eberron HERO conversions), but its primary purpose seems to be to make multiple spells affordable when Power Frameworks aren't available. That was a problem I had with 4th Edition Fantasy Hero ... it was prohibitively expensive to be anything more than a 'dabbler' in most cases, unless you completely ignored taking very appropriate skills.

[Labrat]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I know that in Fantasy Hero it is common to calculate the real cost of a spell, then divide that number by three, and then use THAT as the new real cost for the player to pay.

 

I intend to give this a try, to see how it feels. However, can anyone offer me their opinions/feedback/experiences on this matter?

 

Additionally, should I also divide the real cost of magic ITEMS by three, and then charge the players the new, reduced price? Or is it just the SPELLS? It would be odd if a magic item that did the same thing as a specific spell actually cost MORE than the spell...

 

You might find this thread useful MT... instead of posting my thoughts I'll just refer you to my post therin.

 

Divide By 3 Discussion 2006

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I personally strongly dislike divide by 3. I find it flavorless, unbalanced, and further it doesn't model any sort of magic system found in any source material I can think of.

 

I discuss a number of different "schemas" for Magic Systems, with many examples, here:

 

Magic System Schemas

[Eosin]

Re: Divide by Three

 

My guess is that there is an evenly divided camp - "likers" and "dislikers."

 

I like any system that allows players to build reasonable mages who don't need an extra 100 points just for their magic or that doesn't evecerate the rest of the character in order to eck out points for magic. There aren't many ways to do that in my experience. If it takes more than 40-50 points (in a 75 +75 game) to be a decent mage other factors are going to be sacraficed to the detriment of the game.

 

The trick is finding a balance between rules that require building a crippled magic-gadgiteer and rules that allow building of an orbital platform of death. IMO, it requires both modifications on how the powers are purchased and what powers are considered available.... FREX: Jedi don't have magic armor (niether do Aes Sedai), nor do they fly, but they have TK, EB, Ego Attacks, and RKAs as well as a variety of misc powers.

[Curufea]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I dislike it.

I just use multipowers.

[Frenchman]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Our games have always had it as an option, but most spellcasters have simply gone for the Multi-pool or VPP option because they are sooo much cheaper if you ever get more than ~10 spells.

I happen to like cost divisors better than frameworks, and have run into no problems in play with that method - I have experienced problems with Frameworks which slow down or stop play repeatedly.

I personally have a deep dislike of using power frameworks for all of a caster's spells most of the time, because VPPs either need deep tweaking or make the caster all-powerful. In a 150-point game a shrewdly used 20-point VPP can allow a caster to be a one-man adventuring party.

MPs, on the other hand, suffer from the restriction that only one slot (or only up to AP of the MP) can be active at one time. Casters have three choices:

1 - Only use one spell at a time (Attack or defend, not both)

2 - Use multiple spells at reduced power (Attack and defend at reduced efficiency)

3 - Buy the slots with a mix of END to Activate, Uncontrolled, or Continuing Charges (Effectively reduced the power of the spell and is complicated for newbies)

Both types of frameworks suffer, most damnably IMO, from what we have called the 'Point-Vaccuum' - If a character has a 60-point framework, almost all of their spells are 60 AP. After all, there is no reason for them not to increase the power of their spells when they bump their pool, since it costs almost nothing (if not absolutely nothing).

Finally, frameworks make it so that certain types of spells are non-existant. In MPs, spells which would 'normally' (IOW, bought with cost reduction instead of a framework) be bought as an MP (such as the Door Opening/Closing spell in the Grimoire) are far more expensive than other spells (you have to buy 2 or more slots rather than just one, and since each slot costs 1-3 points, there is little incentive to do so). In either framework, spells that are more powerful than the AP limit are also not purchased, or purchased only rarely (since they have to be bought outside the pool and cost many times the cost of a spell inside it), which I also don't like.

 

Cost reduction doesn't require any build-related insanity, and works with pretty much every magic system (with the obvious exception of those that are mechanically centered around a Framework). Casters will tend to know spells of varying levels of power and effectiveness, and the players don't have to learn any additional rules about how to manage a framework. The only drawback I see to using cost/3 is that it is more expensive than a framework if you are buying more than ~10 spells, which any caster worth their weight in dung should. Because of that I have been toying with the idea of using Cost/4 in my next fantasy game, but we'll have to see how it goes.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by Three

 

There is a flavor difference between divide by three and use of a Multipower. A Multipower encourages attack spells to all gravitate to the same AP, since you pay bvery little more for bringing the atack up to the base (or at least the base less the other spells you expect to have running).

 

Point/3 means a 4d6 Flash might be chosen, even though you also have an 8d6 Energy Blast, since it costs half as much.

 

As well, a Multipower or VPP based magic system doesn't allow for very high AP, very limited spells, which can sometimes have a flavour all their own. Perhaps an EB that only does Knockback. These are very tough to build into a system where maximum AP are governed by the size of the pool.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Divide by Three

 

So... what about magical item costs?

 

Divide by three (assuming they are an integral part of the character)?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

This is how I do Magic Items

[Curufea]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I haven't yet had a player construct a magic item - so the cost in unimportant.

[Frenchman]

Re: Divide by Three

 

So... what about magical item costs?

 

Divide by three (assuming they are an integral part of the character)?

 

We've never had a player pay for a magic item other than myself - and that was only for a magic item which I started the game with, improved over time, and which could not be (permanantly) taken away. Balancing of magic items between players happens fairly naturally in our group, since they are pretty rare, distributed by group decision, and our GM(s) are pretty good at predicting how they will potentially upset game balance.

They're just another form of equipment.

[Old Man]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I strongly dislike divide by 3 simply because it breaks Hero rules unnecessarily. More elegant would be to come up with some kind of -2 limitation that must apply to all spells. My own preference is to use ECs for spellcasters, which achieves a similar cost balancing effect while also encouraging the player to buy quite a few spells of similar power, rather than dumping all the points into one big RKA. But YMMV.

[Tywyll]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I understand that many people aren't fond of the div/3 system. But I have to ask, how do you balance casters paying for spells with non-casters simply paying for things with in game money? It seems, I don't know, unfair. Granted, with magic you can do lots of things you can't do otherwise, but if you allow powerskills (Dark Champions) then this isn't even necessarily the case (except with things like flight obviously). So why should the mage pay CP for a 2d6 RKA when the archer doesn't have to?

 

As for those who say it 'breaks the rules' I don't know if I agree. Ignoring the toolbox nature of Hero for a second, it is simply another kind of framework. I don't see how its any different from Elemental Controls or MPs. I mean, all of the base 'rules' come from a comic book genre, and those default assumption, while they do a good job of universality, are not always going to fit every genre (heroic characters not having to pay points for items, for example). So how is this different?

 

Anyway, YMMV of course, I just think that div/3 is one of the few ways in Hero to allow casters to not be crippled or reduced to one or two 'super powers' rather than spells.

[Frenchman]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I strongly dislike divide by 3 simply because it breaks Hero rules unnecessarily. More elegant would be to come up with some kind of -2 limitation that must apply to all spells. My own preference is to use ECs for spellcasters' date=' which achieves a similar cost balancing effect while also encouraging the player to buy quite a few spells of similar power, rather than dumping all the points into one big RKA. But YMMV.[/quote']

 

I don't really see how it breaks the rules - it is suggested and used by Hero System books.

Most spells allready have at least -2 in limitations - you would need that limitation to be worth -6 to achieve something closer to cost/3

[Eosin]

Re: Divide by Three

 

So... what about magical item costs?

 

Divide by three (assuming they are an integral part of the character)?

 

 

I don't charge for magic items but I also don't allow players to really build them. They just sorta happen and they add game interest rather than player power (very few magic weapons and magic armor tends to do stuff like add 5 points of Power DEF). Basically, everything in my game costs $$ or social influence - not points.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I understand that many people aren't fond of the div/3 system. But I have to ask' date=' how do you balance casters paying for spells with non-casters simply paying for things with in game money? It seems, I don't know, unfair. Granted, with magic you can do lots of things you can't do otherwise, but if you allow powerskills (Dark Champions) then this isn't even necessarily the case (except with things like flight obviously). So why should the mage pay CP for a 2d6 RKA when the archer doesn't have to?[/quote']

 

This question has been asked and talked to death many many times. The crux of this question is based on several fallacies.

 

A) At a high level it makes the mistake of over simplifying things down to the assumption that the only meaningful basis of comparison is damage. It completely ignores the true nature of magic in RPGs, which isn't the ability to do damage, its the ability to do things that are otherwise not possible. You know this already; you touched on it in your post. And you make the point of "super skills" eroding that argument, but you seem to be forgetting that "super skills" cost points, too.

 

If your question was rephrased as "So why should the mage pay CP to be invisible or fly when an archer doesn't have to pay points for an RKA?", it presents a different enigma, now doesn't it?

 

To take your specific case though, it also makes several mistakes of faulty comparison:

 

1) It assumes that the archer did not pay points for their ability to use a bow. This is typically not the case. Beyond the familiarity for the weapon, it is likely that the archer character has invested points in DEX and / or CLs and / or Range Levels so that they can accurately hit with their bow and arrows, plus perhaps ancillary skills such as Fast Draw (bows) so that they can knock their arrows faster, perhaps some stealth and / or concealment so that they can strike from ambush, perhaps some deadly blow so that they can be more lethal, perhaps some combat archery and / or mounted archery so that they can be capable in unsettled situations. Plus, the points they've spent on other abilities to just be competitive and survive.

 

2) It assumes that the mage could not also use a bow (or a sword, or whatever), or otherwise make use of "free" equipment, which is patently false. The reality is that while the mage can and in some cases do use such equipment themselves, they don't have the points to invest in being GOOD at it, because those points are sunk into their magic. Which is part of the point. If the mage got their magic for free AND could use equipment just as good as anyone else...well don't be surprised if the end result of such a circumstance is that EVERY character ends up being a "mage" of some sort. Conversely, points a mage does spend on being good at the things other professions do such as using "free" equipment well is diluting their proficiency at their own profession; the opportunity cost inherent to all point based rpgs; they essentially become hybrid characters.

 

3) It assumes that the mage can use their 2d6 spell as frequently and effortlessly as the archer can shoot arrows, and vice versa that the mage and their magical attack suffers from the same or similar restrictions on their casting as the archer does on their shooting. It also ignores the difference between an attack reliant on a piece of equipment and its expendable ammo and a "spell" brought into play by an effort presumably restricted by some combination of limitation with a great deal of design variance. This may or may not "wash", but its still there to be considered.

 

4) It ignores the fact that the archer is limited both by the availability and the design of bows & arrows. As the archer gains experience, their bow remains the same; the only way its going to get better is if they spend experience points to make themselves better at using it. As the mage gains experience they can make that 2d6 attack 3d6, add explosion, or AP, or +x STUN Multiple, or whatever. In fact, unless the GM doesnt allow it, there's no reason to wait for XP to do that -- the mage can start play with the attack at whatever level they can spare the points for, baring any caps in place.

 

 

Ive been playing and running FantasyHERO across point and power levels with many different magic systems for a very long time now, and with most magic systems its not the magic users that are disadvantaged; its the other way around.

 

As for those who say it 'breaks the rules' I don't know if I agree. Ignoring the toolbox nature of Hero for a second, it is simply another kind of framework. I don't see how its any different from Elemental Controls or MPs. I mean, all of the base 'rules' come from a comic book genre, and those default assumption, while they do a good job of universality, are not always going to fit every genre (heroic characters not having to pay points for items, for example). So how is this different?

Other "frameworks" come with incumbent cons that to some extent check their utility. EC's have a high bar for buying new Powers into them once play starts, are inefficient for attacks, are sensitive to Adjustments, and usually have an END impact that is not negligible. MP's sharply limit the number of Powers active at once. VPP's have a stiff overhead cost in all cases, and either limit the ease with which they are adapted or have a severe point premium.

 

/3 has absolutely no down side. It is also far more efficient than EC's, most MP's, and small VPP's. It is also exclusively offered for SPELLS, which if you really want to argue "class" imbalances as your opening question indicates, should bother you.

 

 

Anyway, YMMV of course, I just think that div/3 is one of the few ways in Hero to allow casters to not be crippled or reduced to one or two 'super powers' rather than spells.

I disagree that is "one of the few ways" etc etc. There are 12 sample magic systems in Fantasy HERO that are not /3, and many of them allow a caster to have many spells in a fashion that is not "crippled". There are other Magic Systems published in Valdorian Age, Digital HERO, and provided on these boards by fans. I myself have designed many workable Magic Systems that in no way "cripple" spellcasters or limit them to "one or two super powers"; many of them are available on my website, with sample characters, package deals, and advice on how to make variants to better suit a particular campaign. So, obviously, your position on this does not withstand the blunt trauma of conflicting with reality.

 

Say rather that you just like /3 without trying to bolster your preference with sophistry.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I don't really see how it breaks the rules - it is suggested and used by Hero System books.

Most spells allready have at least -2 in limitations - you would need that limitation to be worth -6 to achieve something closer to cost/3

 

The "rules" appear in the big black book. Everything else in all the supplements are at best optional. It's not a rule, its an option that happens to be in use in the Turakian Age and supplements defaulted to support Turakian Age. That's it.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with bending or breaking the rules to arrive at a desired end result, mind you, but don't confuse the two or think that because its written in a book about a particular SETTING that it must be universally accepted or agreed upon by others -- particularly those of us with no interest in that particular setting.

[Labrat]

Re: Divide by Three

 

In all fairness, KS, I don't think anyone is approaching this for universal acceptance. The OP requests people's opinions on the use of the divide by 3 rule based off of their experiences.

 

Just like in everything else Hero-related, munchkinism has to be avoided so if that's a threat to the campaign then the divide by three rule shouldn't be used. It's all about one's preference as a GM.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I strongly dislike divide by 3 simply because it breaks Hero rules unnecessarily. More elegant would be to come up with some kind of -2 limitation that must apply to all spells.

 

The same divide by three result is only obtained if that limitation applies after all other limitations have been applied, as someone else has already noted.

 

My own preference is to use ECs for spellcasters' date=' which achieves a similar cost balancing effect while also encouraging the player to buy quite a few spells of similar power, rather than dumping all the points into one big RKA. But YMMV.[/quote']

 

That means if I take a 2d6 RKA Explosion Fireball (or any similar 9 DC attack), I would logically have a +10 PD/+10 ED Hardened 0 END Persistent Force Field slot - why use less than the 45 AP I have available to me? I'll start it up and let it run, so I get better defenses than Plate Mail at no encumbrance cost at all times.

 

Of course, GM scrutiny will prevent abuse, but the EC motivates all spells to have the same point level, as does Multipower and, to some extent, VPP. "Divide by three" provides more incentive (less disincentive?) for spells that have a wide variety of AP totals.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by Three

 

This question has been asked and talked to death many many times. The crux of this question is based on several fallacies.

 

A) At a high level it makes the mistake of over simplifying things down to the assumption that the only meaningful basis of comparison is damage. It completely ignores the true nature of magic in RPGs, which isn't the ability to do damage, its the ability to do things that are otherwise not possible. You know this already; you touched on it in your post. And you make the point of "super skills" eroding that argument, but you seem to be forgetting that "super skills" cost points, too.

 

If your question was rephrased as "So why should the mage pay CP to be invisible or fly when an archer doesn't have to pay points for an RKA?", it presents a different enigma, now doesn't it?

 

One approach I've seen suggested is to allow mages to purchase spells that duplicate the effect of equipment as "familiarities". Thus, he buys "Familiarity - Mystic Bolt" and gets a spell that works similarly to a longbow. It should cost more than the longbow to the extent the limitations (focus, charges) are removed, and less to the extent it has other drawbacks (costs END, for example).

 

To take your specific case though, it also makes several mistakes of faulty comparison:

 

1) It assumes that the archer did not pay points for their ability to use a bow. This is typically not the case. Beyond the familiarity for the weapon, it is likely that the archer character has invested points in DEX and / or CLs and / or Range Levels so that they can accurately hit with their bow and arrows, plus perhaps ancillary skills such as Fast Draw (bows) so that they can knock their arrows faster, perhaps some stealth and / or concealment so that they can strike from ambush, perhaps some deadly blow so that they can be more lethal, perhaps some combat archery and / or mounted archery so that they can be capable in unsettled situations. Plus, the points they've spent on other abilities to just be competitive and survive.

 

The wizard benefits just as much from buying DEX, CL's, RL's and ancillary skills and abilities to use with his spells as the archer benefits from using them with his bow.

 

2) It assumes that the mage could not also use a bow (or a sword' date=' or whatever), or otherwise make use of "free" equipment, which is patently false. The reality is that while the mage can and in some cases do use such equipment themselves, they don't have the points to invest in being GOOD at it, because those points are sunk into their magic. Which is part of the point. If the mage got their magic for free AND could use equipment just as good as anyone else...well don't be surprised if the end result of such a circumstance is that EVERY character ends up being a "mage" of some sort. Conversely, points a mage does spend on being good at the things other professions do such as using "free" equipment well is diluting their proficiency at their own profession; the opportunity cost inherent to all point based rpgs; they essentially become hybrid characters.[/quote']

 

Even if the spells were also familiarities, it would cost just as much to buy combat levels, range levels, etc. with Mystic Bolt as to purchase them with longbow, wouldn't it?

 

3) It assumes that the mage can use their 2d6 spell as frequently and effortlessly as the archer can shoot arrows' date=' and vice versa that the mage and their magical attack suffers from the same or similar restrictions on their casting as the archer does on their shooting. It also ignores the difference between an attack reliant on a piece of equipment and its expendable ammo and a "spell" brought into play by an effort presumably restricted by some combination of limitation with a great deal of design variance. This may or may not "wash", but its still there to be considered.[/quote']

 

This is the tough balancing act. Give the mage Mystic Bolt for a 1 point familiarity, make it 0 END, no focus, unlimited shots, and then we have to ask why anyone would want to play an Archer. Better to spend that 1 point (and ancillary skill points like levels) on FAM: Mystic Bolt and avoid all the drawbacks of having equipment.

 

4) It ignores the fact that the archer is limited both by the availability and the design of bows & arrows. As the archer gains experience' date=' their bow remains the same; the only way its going to get better is if they spend experience points to make themselves better at using it. As the mage gains experience they can make that 2d6 attack 3d6, add explosion, or AP, or +x STUN Multiple, or whatever. In fact, unless the GM doesnt allow it, there's no reason to wait for XP to do that -- the mage can start play with the attack at whatever level they can spare the points for, baring any caps in place. [/quote']

 

The archer can buy Naked Advantages, Deadly Blow, etc. on bows and not pay for the base damage of the bow, however. If we adopt a FAM: Mystic Bolt, the mage needs to pay for any enhancements placed on his Mystic Bolt the same way.

 

I disagree that is "one of the few ways" etc etc. There are 12 sample magic systems in Fantasy HERO that are not /3' date=' and many of them allow a caster to have many spells in a fashion that is not "crippled". There are other Magic Systems published in Valdorian Age, Digital HERO, and provided on these boards by fans. I myself have designed many workable Magic Systems that in no way "cripple" spellcasters or limit them to "one or two super powers"; many of them are available on my website, with sample characters, package deals, and advice on how to make variants to better suit a particular campaign. So, obviously, your position on this does not withstand the blunt trauma of conflicting with reality.

 

 

I agree lots of other workable options are available. But I dont agree that "divide by three" is inherently unworkable either. I do think that, if you use "divide by three", it needs to be balanced off - you don't, for example, get to buy a magic multipower or VPP, then divide the cost of the framework by three. You replace frameworks with "divide by three" to obtain a different flavour.

 

Just as I believe some of your magic systems create brand-new structures to create a balanced magic system with a different flavour.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Of course, GM scrutiny will prevent abuse, but the EC motivates all spells to have the same point level, as does Multipower and, to some extent, VPP. "Divide by three" provides more incentive (less disincentive?) for spells that have a wide variety of AP totals.

Ill challenge this on a number of criteria.

 

A) Assuming only the baseline frameworks are used without variation, this is not necessarily true for any of the frameworks.

 

EC: It is true that an EC forces all powers to have the same MINIMUM AP, it does not force all powers to have the same AP or cost. Point costs, END costs, and applicable modifiers all work to ensure that powers ill be up and down the scale.

 

MP: It is true that an MP can encourage all powers to have the same MAXIMUM AP, but if a character has all of their magic in only one MP practical usage contrives against it, or else places design requirements on the way the MP and the slots in it are defined to circumvent which have their own "costs". Simply put, without going into the minutia of more fringe scenarios, the necessities of balancing Attacks, Defenses, Utility, and Mobility in a given combat situation work against all the "spells" in a MP from being equally potent at all times.

 

VPP: As I'm sure you know, and even alluded to, all VPP's no matter what their SFX, openness, or restrictiveness, have finite limits for both Real and Active points. This represents an inherent incentive for powers to take up no more of a "footprint" in a VPP's allotment than necessary so that multiple "spells" can be on or available simultaneously.

 

Diverging from the vanilla, the basic functionality of the core frameworks can be built upon both to model interesting Magic Systems and to offer increased flexibility of design.

 

Just using the material on my site, which I am most familiar with and thus offer examples from most easily, you can do interesting things with Magic Systems that use multiple Multipowers, such as the "Spontaneous Casting" model of "Vancian" magic on my site which uses stacked Multipowers with charges on the reserve, each more powerful than the one before it. Or the Metier Magic System, wherein each distinct style is represented by a separate Multipower; practitioners might know one style or several styles as they prefer and each style is better at certain things than others.

 

There are all kinds of things you can do with VPP's, of course; I present four different VPP based systems which are all different than one another...the Prepared Casting and Gestalt Casting styles of Vancian Magic, the partially cosmic Adeptology Magic System, and the darker, lower powered Loremastery Magic Systems. All of which, in their many variants and in various ways encourage a mix of power levels in the "spells" cast from them.

 

I could go on, but the point is, its child s play to engineer a system whereby there is a benefit to tiered effects if that is ones wish.

 

C. /3 does not offer an incentive, or even a disincentive to have spells be of differing AP. The same divisor is used on two given powers whether they have matching AP and RC or not; it doesn't reward or punish either way. It's just an accounting gimmick available only to an arbitrarily narrow type of character, determined solely by SFX (which is supposed to be a HERO System no no to begin with), so the only thing it offers an incentive for is for players to make characters that qualify for it.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

One approach I've seen suggested is to allow mages to purchase spells that duplicate the effect of equipment as "familiarities". Thus' date=' he buys "Familiarity - Mystic Bolt" and gets a spell that works similarly to a longbow. It should cost more than the longbow to the extent the limitations (focus, charges) are removed, and less to the extent it has other drawbacks (costs END, for example).[/quote']

Yeah, no kidding? I have three Magic Systems based around this idea under the grouping of Validus Familiaritas. Im "familiar" with the concept if you'll excuse a pun. It can be made to work if all the powers available to the Magic System are strongly limited to not be completely out of line with the general effectiveness of Equipment. However, it is actually more difficult, not less, to keep spellcasters on this model under control, particularly in the middle character point strata.

 

 

The wizard benefits just as much from buying DEX, CL's, RL's and ancillary skills and abilities to use with his spells as the archer benefits from using them with his bow.

Do tell? You mean the spellcaster wouldnt be better off taking advantage of the ability to have AoE accurate effects like magic missile or AoE indiscriminant like fireball instead and circumvent the need for OCV to hit point targets, or to have true strike style spells that grant them bonuses when they need them, or spells like blink that give them DCV when they need them, and so on and so forth?

 

Once a spellcaster gets past the entry bar of investing in their Magic System more often than not they gain better returns by continuing to invest in their Magic System and use it as a means to situationally "covering" the things other professions are good at all the time. This is the true power of Magic -- the toolbox effect.

 

Even if the spells were also familiarities, it would cost just as much to buy combat levels, range levels, etc. with Mystic Bolt as to purchase them with longbow, wouldn't it?

 

Unless of course Mystic Bolt were designed as an AoE 1 Hex Accurate No Range Penalty effect...or perhaps LOS...or perhaps the spell itself included OCV levels in its build...or perhaps the Mystic Bolt were built as a Summon Follower that would seek out the target until it hits or "dies"...or whatever.

 

 

I agree lots of other workable options are available. But I dont agree that "divide by three" is inherently unworkable either. I do think that, if you use "divide by three", it needs to be balanced off - you don't, for example, get to buy a magic multipower or VPP, then divide the cost of the framework by three. You replace frameworks with "divide by three" to obtain a different flavour.

 

Just as I believe some of your magic systems create brand-new structures to create a balanced magic system with a different flavour.

 

Yes, they do. As I said, I don't have a problem with, and do myself, diverge from the core rules when I need to arrive at a specific end result.

 

However I don't consider /3 to add flavor -- quite the opposite in fact. It adds no more flavor than a tax return, audit tally, or any other accounting gimmick. It has no room for variation, no hooks that can be interacted with. It is purely mathematical, and not well balanced against the rest of the game. Even an Elemental Control, which is just a less efficient accounting gimmick as well, has SOME flavor, some kind of hooks that can be interacted with, some differences in implementations to offer trade offs and variation of design.

 

/3 fails in all these regards for me, and is distinctly boring to me, for lack of a better word.

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Yeah, KS has basically covered it for me, too. Divide by three is such a truly terrible kludge, I can't imagine why any GM would ever want to use it.

 

Here's a simple exercise - take the Fantasy Grimoire, look at some of the nastier spells in there and then divide the real costs by 3. Far from being a -2 limitation, it often adds up to a -6 or -10 and basically renders any character *other* than mages totally redundant. Want a realy stealthy rogue? Build a mage with shadow magic. Want a kickass warrior? Build a warrior-mage or a shapeshifter. And so on.

 

cheers, Mark

[Tywyll]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Ok, KS, I'm a bit surprised by the level of venom in this post. You are accusing me of thinking and implying things that aren't the case, and the post comes across as somewhat personal of an attack. I don't know what I did to upset you, but I don't think this response is cool, nor is the tone necessary to make your point (which I still disagree with).

 

This question has been asked and talked to death many many times. The crux of this question is based on several fallacies.