Divide by Three

[Frenchman]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I have to agree with Tywyll, this thread has become nasty, and it will no longer benefit from my continued input, of which I sadly have much more.

[Steve]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I'm a little surprised too. I've come to expect a certain level of snarkyness in KS's posts, but these have been a bit nastier in tone, like the poster he replied to kicked his dog or something.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Ok' date=' 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).[/quote']

 

No tone or attack implied. Its just one of those subjects that periodically comes up and gets talked round and round and round. If you want to perceive it as an attack, then take its as an attack on your position, not you personally.

 

Maybe I should inject more smilies to make it clear that I'm not asking you to "step outside" or anything, Im just framing my objections to /3.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I'm a little surprised too. I've come to expect a certain level of snarkyness in KS's posts' date=' but these have been a bit nastier in tone, like the poster he replied to kicked his dog or something.[/quote']

 

Snarky in what way, per se?

[Eosin]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Snarky in what way' date=' per se?[/quote']

 

You got a bit more bile in your posts than normal in this thread. I was gonna ask who kicked your puppy today

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Um....actually Im in a really good mood today. I feel strongly about the /3 method; sorry if that comes off the wrong way.

[Tywyll]

Re: Divide by Three

 

No tone or attack implied. Its just one of those subjects that periodically comes up and gets talked round and round and round. If you want to perceive it as an attack, then take its as an attack on your position, not you personally.

 

Maybe I should inject more smilies to make it clear that I'm not asking you to "step outside" or anything, Im just framing my objections to /3.

 

Hey KS,

 

I appreciate the clarification. I think telling me I'm illogical (without understanding what I was thinking or intending) and a sophist (which is never used in a way that isn't insulting towards the thought process of the person you are using it on) really came across as hostile.

 

I appreciate that you feel strongly about Div/3. I appreciate that you have a lot of experience with the system. That doesn't mean that different views are wrong, and it doesn't mean that others can't find ways to use systems you might disagree with. It doesn't make us illogical, or wrong.

 

Anyway, I'm going to step back from this thread and just get back to gaming.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Hey KS,

 

I appreciate the clarification. I think telling me I'm illogical (without understanding what I was thinking or intending) and a sophist (which is never used in a way that isn't insulting towards the thought process of the person you are using it on) really came across as hostile.

 

Maybe the delivery via internet seemed heated, but it wasn't meant to be.

 

However, I don't see the exchange in those terms.

 

Here is how I see it, and how I intended it:

 

You based your comparison of how to cost or not cost spells on the similarity between a 2d6 RKA bow and a 2d6 RKA spell. I pointed out that this is a faulty basis for logic. You asked how /3 is different from other frameworks and I addressed that. You made a statement, namely: "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.", that I consider to be completely false and unsupportable by vast personal experience and noted it.

 

 

However, in the interests of not ruffling any feathers, Ill rephrase the post removing all references to fallacies and sophistry as such:

 

A) I contend that your bow vs spell RKA example is far too narrow and ignores too many other issues to be taken as a viable means of comparison. I challenge you to prove your assertion that this is a viable means of comparison that is translatable to all spells in a given magic system.

 

I contend that /3 is not "just another framework", has none of the checks inherent to the existing frameworks, and is a flavorless accounting trick. I challenge you to establish its parity with other frameworks.

 

C) I contend that there are many Magic Systems that "allow casters to not be crippled or reduced to one or two 'super powers' rather than spells", and challenge you to establish that the majority of Magic Systems publicly available cripple or reduce casters to one or two super powers rather than spells.

 

 

I appreciate that you feel strongly about Div/3. I appreciate that you have a lot of experience with the system. That doesn't mean that different views are wrong, and it doesn't mean that others can't find ways to use systems you might disagree with. It doesn't make us illogical, or wrong.

 

I think people are free to do whatever they want in their own games of course, but I also think that there are always, in any endeavor, good ideas and bad ideas. Some ideas are elegant, balanced, time-proven, well honed, that serve a practical need, are fun, enhance games and / or simply work well in general. Other ideas are flawed, unbalanced, ill-conceived, that have long term risks, suffer from poor design, are easy to mess up in implementation, are not fun, detract from games, and / or simply do not work well in general.

 

When I know an idea is bad from the basis of my own personal experience and expertise, and say so, I'm just sharing my perspective. If you don't agree with it fine. If you want to debate it however, then there will be discourse and I will do my best to challenge the opposing position. At the end of the day, you can still do it your way and I can still do it my way. Do I think my way is better? Mostly its just different, or an approach thats useful in some circumstances but not others, but yes sometimes I think my way is better. Feel free to disagree, of course.

[Old Man]

Re: Divide by Three

 

The same divide by three result is only obtained if that limitation applies after all other limitations have been applied' date=' as someone else has already noted.[/quote']

 

I never claimed the additional -2 would give identical results to /3, only that it would give a similar result while staying within Hero rules.

 

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.

 

You are intentionally choosing one of the most undercosted (for fantasy) powers for your example, so it carries no weight. Except for force field and flight, 45 AP is pretty balanced across all the powers.

 

(As an aside, in FH, wizards are a lot better off investing in non-attack powers. Attacks are expensive, whereas support powers like invisibility or telekinesis are not only powerful in their own right, most opponents have no answer for them--unless magic is extremely widespread in the setting.)

 

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 ... (less disincentive?) for spells that have a wide variety of AP totals.

 

Precisely. The point is whether the wide range should be discouraged. In my opinion, it should, because I have seen too many munchkins spend 20 real points on an RKA and five more on a 0 END force field, and then play their 'wizards' as if they were Cyclops of the X-Men. Far less irritating are wizards with 8-10 mostly-noncombat spells in the 20-30 AP range.

[Eosin]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I contend that /3 is not "just another framework", has none of the checks inherent to the existing frameworks, and is a flavorless accounting trick. I challenge you to establish its parity with other frameworks.

 

C) I contend that there are many Magic Systems that "allow casters to not be crippled or reduced to one or two 'super powers' rather than spells", and challenge you to establish that the majority of Magic Systems publicly available cripple or reduce casters to one or two super powers rather than spells.

 

I am gonna take on these two. Mainly, because I have to believe that there is some better way of doing things out there that just hasn't been properly illuminated yet (despite many descent systems on KSs site - none of them stand out as "the" system that has 90-100% of what I think a fantasy magic system should have).

 

Dealing with B - all mechanics are flavorless accounting systems. The flavor isn't in the way the math is figured out ~ it is the descriptive text, spell selection, spell restriction, and inherent complications within the settings magic force. An EC, MPP, VPP, strait up buy, or divisor have nothing to offer save for their ability to represent an abstraction. One forumla is not more "attractive" save to those who are looking to represent "computational rigor" rather than building a magic system. That doesn't mean that math elegance and a magic system are incompatible but that the system design should come before the math design.

 

Dealing with C - All my favorite media depict magic characters whose arcane power rivals thier muscular/stealthy counterparts without the need to sacrafice "character" (save for S&S & mythos stuff where mages are both much more powerful and much weaker). General Examples include - Dune, Star Wars, LotR, WOT, and Gimmell.

 

• The first caveat is that mages should not need to be physically weak/combat incompetent specimens just to access their magic. This does not imply that they should be as robust as the blademaster dedicating his life to the 596 mysteries of the sword, just that they should not have to reduce thier stats to master magic.
  

 

Standard fantasy campaigns feature either 50 + 50 up to 75 +75 point builds. That is the field of operations. Most magic systems require around a third of the character points (up to one half) as a buy to achieve a moderate grasp of magic. We can get into semantics but generally starting characters in Fantasy Hero are comparable to d20 characters in the 5th-8th level range (a wide field to accomodate diverse opinions ~ I think 75 + 75 is right around a 7th level OD&D chacter with multiple attacks but that is just my opinion).

 

This means that to be comparable the Fantasy Hero wizard should be capable of casting the bottom tier of mid-ranged spells (3rd - 4th level). Looking at several of the classes designed on your site this seems unfeasable or at least prompting point conservation to a determental level by the majority of the provided systems (casually noted ~ not a concrete fact).

 

Specific Examples:

A player can expect their Adept to start off fragile, but their flexibility allows them to have the right Magic for any circumstance thus extending their survivability.

 

The base package for an Adept starts at 55 points but this doesn't get us near the 4th level mark - in fact, it falls short of the 2nd spell level mark with a VPP of 25 points. To get up with the fighter it would take another 35-38 points on average with a minimum of 16 points.

 

Another example is the Sorcery School. To cast 4th level (by the provided chart) would require 61 points dropped into the power.

 

I am sure that some are cheaper than the two examples provided ~ those just happened to be the ones that I looked at.

 

Now, none of this so far takes into account that a wizards bread and butter is stereotypically his knowledge/wisdom. No other archtype requires as many points invested in skills as the mage (rangers & nobles are comparable).

 

Dang, gotta go half way through.... Anyway - here is the point. In Hero, under nearly every scheme I have seen, wizards require nearly every ounce of character point mojo to just barely qualify them for the class. No other archtype comes close to the point demands placed on the them. This leads, in my experience, to a phenom I call the "orbital platform of death" character alternatively "the mental sniper syndrome" or plain and simply crippled characters. Or, it leads to characters who are robustly designed but can't magic their way out of a paper bag and a player who is unsatisfied.

 

There isn't an easy answer ~ I would like to believe that I'd have found it after more than a decade of running Fantasy Hero. But then, maybe I have unrealistic expectations. Maybe I want to much?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by Three

 

You are intentionally choosing one of the most undercosted (for fantasy) powers for your example' date=' so it carries no weight. Except for force field and flight, 45 AP is pretty balanced across all the powers.[/quote']

 

I am also choosing an example that most wizards tend to have in their repertoire - a personal defense spell. If I toss a reasonable force field in my EC, I raise the cost of all those other 45 AP powers. If I buy it outside the EC, I pay about the same cost for a reasonable defensive spell as I would have paid for an unreasonable one in the EC.

 

A number of abilities fit poorly in an EC. Consider:

 

- water breathing - just how many "others" should it be "usable by"?

- defenses, as already alluded to

- movement powers get pretty fast, but probably not as much of an issue

- 45 points of invisibility covers a wide array of sense groups - considerably more than the typical Fantasy character

- desolid (ghost form) - make it have 45 AP

- Darkness either covers a lot of senses or a fairly large area

 

Precisely. The point is whether the wide range should be discouraged. In my opinion' date='[/i'] it should, because I have seen too many munchkins spend 20 real points on an RKA and five more on a 0 END force field, and then play their 'wizards' as if they were Cyclops of the X-Men. Far less irritating are wizards with 8-10 mostly-noncombat spells in the 20-30 AP range.

 

Now we've moved from 45 AP to 20 - 30 AP. Is there a reason we shouldn't have attack spells? I agree that the system can be abused, but I don't see an EC being any less prone to abuse. The problem with Cyclops isn't system, it's a poor genre player. He can still buy that Force Field and KA in an EC and shave off half the cost of his Force Field, getting the same character.

 

And rep to Eosin - he nails the issue quite handily.

 

I maintain that divide by 3 is not the "one true way", but neither is it somehow inferior to multipowers, EC's or VPP's (or numerous other systems) as an approach.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I maintain that divide by 3 is not the "one true way", but neither is it somehow inferior to multipowers, EC's or VPP's (or numerous other systems) as an approach.

Ill agree that ECs are the least ideal of the three frameworks for fantasy magic users, but it strikes me as odd that you would hold an EC to be too efficient and use that as the basis of justification for /3 .... which is much more efficient than an EC.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Ill agree that ECs are the least ideal of the three frameworks for fantasy magic users' date=' but it strikes me as odd that you would hold an EC to be too efficient and use that as the basis of justification for /3 .... which is much more efficient than an EC.[/quote']

 

I don't consider the EC to be too efficient, and I agree that Multipowers and VPP's work better. All three tend to encourage spells to have similar AP levels overall, however, something the "divide by three" approach does not encourage. NOTE: It doesn't explicitly discourage this either, but it does not encourage it, where I find the frameworks approach does.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I am gonna take on these two. Mainly' date=' because I have to believe that there is some better way of doing things out there that just hasn't been properly illuminated yet (despite many descent systems on KSs site - none of them stand out as "the" system that has 90-100% of what I think a fantasy magic system should have).[/quote']

 

Well for starters, when did this become about my magic systems?

 

For seconders none of the systems on my site claim to be "the" system. If one of them was intended to be "the" system, it would be the only system.

 

They are all intended to model different feels / flavors / ideas, not to be the end all be all Magic System for all time.

 

Personally, I dont think ANY Magic System can really capture every permutation of "magic", and I think that's a good thing. Personally, in my San'Dora campaign, I use ALL the Magic Systems on my site at the same time. I like that kind of breadth and variety, personally.

 

Dealing with B - all mechanics are flavorless accounting systems. The flavor isn't in the way the math is figured out ~ it is the descriptive text, spell selection, spell restriction, and inherent complications within the settings magic force. An EC, MPP, VPP, strait up buy, or divisor have nothing to offer save for their ability to represent an abstraction. One forumla is not more "attractive" save to those who are looking to represent "computational rigor" rather than building a magic system. That doesn't mean that math elegance and a magic system are incompatible but that the system design should come before the math design.

I disagree. There are permutations of configuration, in a descending scale with VPP's at the highest and EC's at the lowest, that allow the design of different magic systems with the same framework that have different feels and functions in game.

 

In other words, the way the frameworks are set up can be used very successfully to distinguish the "look & feel" and performance of different magic systems using them. Also, each of the 3 real frameworks provide SFX hooks, and mechanical hooks that can be interacted with in various ways which can further add flavor and interesting quirks.

 

/3 does not offer this richness of design. You take the RC, divide it by 3, and thats it. Those are your options. What interacts with it? Nothing. It's a non entity mechanically. You don't even record it on your character's sheet. It doesn't exist as anything other than a means to reduce costs.

 

 

Dealing with C - All my favorite media depict magic characters whose arcane power rivals thier muscular/stealthy counterparts without the need to sacrafice "character" (save for S&S & mythos stuff where mages are both much more powerful and much weaker). General Examples include - Dune, Star Wars, LotR, WOT, and Gimmell.

**cough GEMMELL cough**

 

I never said they should, must, will, or do. However, there must be some form of parity unless you are playing a in a game like Ars Magica or MAGE where the "magic user" is basically supposed to be better than everyone else.

 

 

• The first caveat is that mages should not need to be physically weak/combat incompetent specimens just to access their magic. This does not imply that they should be as robust as the blademaster dedicating his life to the 596 mysteries of the sword, just that they should not have to reduce thier stats to master magic.
  

Did I suggest that spellcasters should be forced to "reduce their stats"?

Standard fantasy campaigns feature either 50 + 50 up to 75 +75 point builds. That is the field of operations. Most magic systems require around a third of the character points (up to one half) as a buy to achieve a moderate grasp of magic. We can get into semantics but generally starting characters in Fantasy Hero are comparable to d20 characters in the 5th-8th level range (a wide field to accomodate diverse opinions ~ I think 75 + 75 is right around a 7th level OD&D chacter with multiple attacks but that is just my opinion).

Actually this one is complex and I disagree with it on multiple levels. Personally, if we want to talk in terms of D&D, I think a 7th level D&D character is around 215 points. I think a 150 point character is basically around "1st level". Im not saying thats a universal constant or anything along those lines, but Ive converted a lot of D&D characters to the HERO System over the years, and the numbers I use work out on the money very frequently.

 

I also disagree that there is such a thing as "standard Fantasy", or the idea that the target band is 50 50 or 75 75 or any other value. Fantasy is just a genre, with various tropes and window dressing. It can be played up and down the power scale, and further the starting points of the characters means very little regarding how challenged they really are since everything is relative. In the campaign where most serious opposition is around 50 to 75 points, the 100 point starting PCs are bad ass; in the campaign where most serious opposition is 1000 points the 500 point starting PCs are wimpy.

 

Personally, I like to start PCs in the 150 point range and scale the campaign from there, but I have started PC's at 500+ points, and at 75 points when that was appropriate to the campaign I was running. But I make few assumptions along those lines.

 

 

 

This means that to be comparable the Fantasy Hero wizard should be capable of casting the bottom tier of mid-ranged spells (3rd - 4th level). Looking at several of the classes designed on your site this seems unfeasable or at least prompting point conservation to a determental level by the majority of the provided systems (casually noted ~ not a concrete fact).

 

Well, since I reject your assumption of "level to points" and use a different one, this is basically a meaningless assessment.

 

Specific Examples:

 

The base package for an Adept starts at 55 points but this doesn't get us near the 4th level mark - in fact, it falls short of the 2nd spell level mark with a VPP of 25 points. To get up with the fighter it would take another 35-38 points on average with a minimum of 16 points.

There are very many things here that are invalid assumptions. Ill try to catch them all:

 

A) I reject your measuring stick of "4th level" whatever

 

I reject your assumption of what power level is appropriate according to a comparison to D&D by your definition of how many points a character of whatever level should have. That was not the criteria I designed against, and they do not match.

 

C) The Adept Magic System does not use the concept of Spell Levels. It is a partially cosmic VPP model. Users of it can do basically whatever they want. There is a very large premium on their VPP associated with this and thus they will of course have a smaller Pool to work with than a practitioner of a different Magic System that does not have the same flexibility.

 

D) I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to "get up with the fighter".

 

E) The Composite Package Deals are aimed at starting 150 point characters, not so much the Basic Package Deals. Basic Package Deals are building blocks to be mixed and matched. They are kept at 55 points each to make them easily interchangeable -- modular basically.

 

If you want to get into the nitty gritty:

 

The 25 point Novice Adept Extension Package essentially represents the minimum buy in for the system. It has 10 Pool in its VPP and is basically an apprentice level for this Magic System.

 

The 55 point Adept Basic Package for Adepts represents the lowest buy in to be creditable as a starting Adept. It has 25 Pool and is basically a journeyman level for this Magic System.

 

Both are very barebones, intentionally.

 

There are multiple Composite Packages that expand on the root concept in various ways. One of them is the 111 point Arcane Adept, which as 50 Pool and a good deal of END to use with it via a Reserve. This is intended to be a dedicated starting character that has focused on their magic; 50 Pool in a 0 Phase Change (+1), No Skill Roll Required (+1) VPP is pretty damn impressive in a 150 point game, and its quite appropriately pretty damn expensive.

 

There is also the 114 point Militant Adept which has 40 Pool, but a good amount of combat skill.

 

Both are also still leaving some points on the table for config as well. And so on with the other composites.

 

This is totally ignoring the underlying fact that you are using some kind of a D&D frame of reference to measure a Magic System that was not designed to in any way model any thing found in D&D.

 

 

Another example is the Sorcery School. To cast 4th level (by the provided chart) would require 61 points dropped into the power.

 

Actually, you're completely off base here; if you're going to critique something you should probably read it well enough to do so from an informed position.

 

If you reread it you'll see that the chart you were looking at is mapping Active Points into "Spell Levels" in 15 Active Point increments. What it is saying is that any Spell with 61-75 Active Points is considered to be a "4th Level Spell". This does not mean that it costs 61 points for a 4th Level Spell.

 

However, I'll help you out a bit and build that particular magic system up to 4th level.

 

The idea behind Sorcery is its a series of stacked Multipowers with Charges on the reserve as well as the slot. I'm not going to regurgitate the contents of the document here, but as this particular Magic System was designed to model something equivalent to D&D's Sorcerers it should be clear that the intent is to model the X Spells per Spell Level Per day concept.

 

There are a lot of variables at the individual level based upon how many charges and how many spell slots a particular character has and so forth, but this particular sample character happens to have 4th level Spells, handily enough....Rialta Foranvor. She spent 92 points on her spells, plus another 19 points of overhead in a Skill the magic system requires to learn new slots. At 180 total character points she has 20 Spells and 30 "fire & forget" Charges per day, with her upper range being 75 AP Spells, across her five Multipowers; she could have spent more or less, but did spend about 60% of her points on magic and 40% on other things. Not too shabby, IMO.

 

I am sure that some are cheaper than the two examples provided ~ those just happened to be the ones that I looked at.

Well...Adeptology is pretty much the single most expensive Magic System on the site due to its partially cosmic VPP nature, with the possible exception of the NPA based Stoburu at its upper end. Sorcery is somewhere in the high middle.

 

Some are substantially less expensive, but conversely more limited in some fashion.

 

 

Now, none of this so far takes into account that a wizards bread and butter is stereotypically his knowledge/wisdom. No other archtype requires as many points invested in skills as the mage (rangers & nobles are comparable).

Hold on a second....

 

A) not all users of magic are "wizards" in the Gandalfian sense with point hats and strokey beards, spilling over with wisdom and sagacity. Let's not apply a very narrow stereotype to a very broad and wide open concept, shall we?

 

that depends completely and entirely on setting and the role of "wizards" or similar in it. Perhaps in some settings some or all magic users are learned scholars in addition to their mystical might, but not necessarily.

 

Any character of any "profession" can be sagacious. Magical ability is completely independent of that. You might like to pair them together on a particular character to suit your idea of "wizard", but they are two different skill sets.

Dang, gotta go half way through.... Anyway - here is the point. In Hero, under nearly every scheme I have seen, wizards require nearly every ounce of character point mojo to just barely qualify them for the class. No other archtype comes close to the point demands placed on the them. This leads, in my experience, to a phenom I call the "orbital platform of death" character alternatively "the mental sniper syndrome" or plain and simply crippled characters. Or, it leads to characters who are robustly designed but can't magic their way out of a paper bag and a player who is unsatisfied.

 

That depends entirely on the Magic System. I have not had this problem in my games, and I'd be willing to forward the claim that if I haven't tried more Magic Systems in play than anyone else with the HERO System, I'm at least in the top 5 world wide. Sometimes when working the bugs out a point disparity is revealed, but they are usually easily corrected. Sometimes it's even acceptable as a check on system.

 

Point is, different people want different things from a Magic System to model what they think Magic is, and this is a great thing in the HERO System since its one of the few RPG's that will actually allow you to create such a system or systems plural to perfectly suit your desires.

 

The /3 method on the other hand isn't a "system". It doesn't model anything. It just says..."if you pick abilities for your character of a particular SFX you get a three for one special...just because. Characters that pick other SFX for their characters like "good fighter" and "sneaky rogue"? Played by people that can't do math, I guess."

 

I'm sorry if we can't see eye to eye on this, but IMO /3 is just an abortion from start to finish. To me it just seems like a ridiculously gamist, unfair, and creatively lazy approach. Encountered a hitch? Just throw points at it. It basically is a tacit admittance that the game is not balanced (which I don't agree with). I really can't say enough bad things about it. I dislike it on every level, and with good reasons IMO (which Ive already gone into in depth).

 

There isn't an easy answer ~ I would like to believe that I'd have found it after more than a decade of running Fantasy Hero. But then, maybe I have unrealistic expectations. Maybe I want to much?

"It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great. " --Jimmy Dugan.

 

Actually just kidding there -- it was too good of an opening to throw out a quote -- I think that while it isnt "easy" per se, neither is it impossible to craft one or more cool, interesting, memorable, and fun Magic Systems that are ideally suited to a particular campaign. Further I find this potential for something interesting and tailored to be one of...perhaps the biggest draw for doing Fantasy with the HERO System.

 

Thats why Ive made so many Magic Systems; because to me it's fun. I like finding new ways to express the concept of "magic", making characters for them to see how they stat out, comparing the numbers, gaging the pros and cons, feeling out the playability, putting them into a game for real, and seeing how it all sorts out. Thats me; I'm strange like that. Of course I don't expect others to be the same.

 

I put my Magic Systems out for people to see, like all the material I present, because I think they have the potential to be useful, inspirational, idea provoking, or illustrative to at least some people. I don't put the content out there to say "this is the one true way" of doing anything; I mean, the sheer number of Magic Systems and suggestions for variants should make that clear even if the many places I flatly state "take what you like and leave the rest behind the sneezeguards" don't. If I thought there was one true way to do something, I would present that one way -- I wouldn't bother with all the other ways now would I?

 

Furthermore, and to be crystal clear, my objection to /3 is not founded in my Systems. I would feel the same way if I had never made a single Magic System myself. There are many other viable Magic Systems available and out there as well which I think is a great thing. Probably the main reason I dislike /3 is because its point efficiency absolutely cuts the throat of almost any balanced magic system, and as such many cool and interesting Magic System with a lot of flavor and potential that took some thought and effort to create will always be compared disfavorably to /3 by a certain segment of gamers who only care about power ups. I hesitate to label it munchkinny out right from general courtesy, but its definitely far to meta-gamey for my tastes.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I don't consider the EC to be too efficient' date=' and I agree that Multipowers and VPP's work better. [/quote']

 

Strange...the bulk of your counter arguments against EC's seemed to be founded on the efficiencies of Defense vs Attacks in the same EC caused by the fact that defenses are generally cheaper than attacks. I suppose I just misinterpreted it.

 

And of course, I think we all already know that ECs are generally inefficient for non-Constant attacks....right?

 

All three tend to encourage spells to have similar AP levels overall, however, something the "divide by three" approach does not encourage. NOTE: It doesn't explicitly discourage this either, but it does not encourage it, where I find the frameworks approach does.

 

I'll just repost my response to this position from one of your earlier posts here:

 

 

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.

[Old Man]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I am also choosing an example that most wizards tend to have in their repertoire - a personal defense spell. If I toss a reasonable force field in my EC' date=' I raise the cost of all those other 45 AP powers. If I buy it outside the EC, I pay about the same cost for a reasonable defensive spell as I would have paid for an unreasonable one in the EC.[/quote']

 

Since you missed it the first time, this is because force field and movement powers are undercosted for fantasy, not because the EC is a poor mechanic.

 

Now we've moved from 45 AP to 20 - 30 AP. Is there a reason we shouldn't have attack spells? I agree that the system can be abused, but I don't see an EC being any less prone to abuse.

 

Of course there is no reason to not have attack spells; your comment is disingenuous. ECs can be abused, but it's hard to do so, and at least the EC serves to nudge character construction in a genre-consistent manner.

 

 

The problem with Cyclops isn't system, it's a poor genre player. He can still buy that Force Field and KA in an EC and shave off half the cost of his Force Field, getting the same character.

 

The problem is the combination of a poor genre player with a mechanic that does nothing to discourage him from being poor. He can indeed get the same character more cheaply with the EC, but now he is intentionally passing up the potential savings offered by the EC in order to keep his poor-genre character.

 

I maintain that divide by 3 is not the "one true way", but neither is it somehow inferior to multipowers, EC's or VPP's (or numerous other systems) as an approach.

 

It is inferior, because it is arbitrary and non-Hero, and does nothing to encourage balanced construction of magic-employing characters.

[Eosin]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Well for starters, when did this become about my magic systems?

 

For seconders none of the systems on my site claim to be "the" system. If one of them was intended to be "the" system, it would be the only system.

 

I don't have enough time to address the post this morning. I did want to address this issue. It isn't about your magic system(s). I was trying to acknowledge all the good work that you have done with the various systems on your site which we can all easily reference and most of us will readily acknowledge as the most well thought out systems available as a communal reference. Giving credit where it is due.

 

Second issue ~ I'll agree that you don't claim to have the answer. The whole post isn't about you having the answer, it is about me looking for "the" answer or at least a better answer.

 

I'll try to find sometime today to address the rest of your post.

 

 

• This'll speed along my reply....
  

I think a 150 point character is basically around "1st level". Im not saying thats a universal constant or anything along those lines, but Ive converted a lot of D&D characters to the HERO System over the years, and the numbers I use work out on the money very frequently.

 

1st level characters (to me) are town guards, your average bandit, and an Orc grunt. Those are characters most commonly depicted in the modules as being "1st level." These characters tend to be 50 total points in my games, give or take. I know that I have seen your take on points versus levels so point me back to it if it is on your site ~ this way we can talk apples to apples instead of disagreeing on who the best apple pickers happen to be... I want to avoid the semantics and siderail digressions.

[Eosin]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I want to make a quick comparison.

 

How many points to make a mage a smokin MFr?

 

I can make a rampaging ginsu of death fighter for 33 points. 12 Points in martial arts, +2 DC martial arts, 1 WE, WF: Commmon melee, and +5 CLS with Martial Arts. This guy can stand with the elite crowd and probably deserves a Reputation for being a bad monkey. I can do similar with an Archer, Ranger, Thief, or other non-spell casting class. Attack, DEF, versility in combat actions, all of these figure in to the above character.

 

I have yet to see a way to build a comparable mage.

 

PS - both the mage and the fighter need stats but that is a wash in a comparison.

 

PPS - off to the doctor's!

[Edsel]

Re: Divide by Three

 

How many points to make a mage a smokin MFr?

That depends vastly on the particular campaign. Based on the cost of the spells in my Slayers Hero project Lina Inverse, A world-class sorcerer and good swordswoman, will need to be on the order of 1000 points to afford all the spells and skills she should have. (In her d20 write-up she is epic level, the weakest version is 23rd level).

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I have an all day conference today, but Ill try to respond to the above this evening or tomorrow morning.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Since you missed it the first time' date=' this is because force field and movement powers are undercosted for fantasy, not because the EC is a poor mechanic.[/quote']

 

They are also very common powers for a wizard to possess. If the system can’t handle them, I see that as a problem in the system.

 

Of course there is no reason to not have attack spells; your comment is disingenuous. ECs can be abused' date=' but it's hard to do so, and at least the EC serves to nudge character construction in a genre-consistent manner.[/quote']

 

Apparently, it’s not so hard if you include a force field spell to defend you or a flight spell to move you about. Is it genre-consistent for all spells to have more or less the same power? Depends which part of the genre you look at, in my opinion.

 

Also, an EC requires a tight special effect. I question whether “magic” qualifies, especially in a fantasy game where many abilities are “magic”. If you want a game where mages focus on schools of magic (Fire Magic, Defensive Magic, Plant Magic), an EC based structure may be very effective. But a wizard with a Fireball, Shocking Grasp, Fly, Web and Shield spell seems not to fit well in that game.

 

The problem is the combination of a poor genre player with a mechanic that does nothing to discourage him from being poor. He can indeed get the same character more cheaply with the EC' date=' but now he is intentionally passing up the potential savings offered by the EC in order to keep his poor-genre character.[/quote']

 

RKA Flame Bolt

Force Field Flame Shield

Flames of Flight

 

Human Torch for Fantasy Hero

 

It is inferior' date=' because it is arbitrary and non-Hero, and does nothing to encourage balanced construction of magic-employing characters.[/quote']

 

I suspect, if the EC were introduced today rather than being with us since 1st Ed, it would be similarly criticized. After all:

 

- it reduces the AP cost of each power by half the AP of the smallest power, and costs you that same 1/2 AP. How is that any less arbitrary than reducing the cost of spells to 1/3?

- It offers a cost reduction to all “magic” powers. Why not all “great swordsman” powers or all “stealthy rogue” powers?

- It encourages spells of uniform AP. Is that balanced character construction?

 

Personally' date=' I dont think ANY Magic System can really capture every permutation of "magic", and I think that's a good thing. [/quote']

 

Agreed.

 

In other words, the way the frameworks are set up can be used very successfully to distinguish the "look & feel" and performance of different magic systems using them. Also, each of the 3 real frameworks provide SFX hooks, and mechanical hooks that can be interacted with in various ways which can further add flavor and interesting quirks.

 

/3 does not offer this richness of design. You take the RC, divide it by 3, and thats it. Those are your options. What interacts with it? Nothing. It's a non entity mechanically. You don't even record it on your character's sheet. It doesn't exist as anything other than a means to reduce costs.

 

I think you give yourself too little credit. The EC, MP or VPP mechanic don’t add the flavour. Your magic system rules, restrictions and requirements, together with your non-mechanical descriptions, add the flavour. THAT is what always impresses me about the systems on your site, anyway.

 

An EC mechanically subtracts some points from the cost. A Multipower or VPP mechanically creates a pool I can draw on for varying effects, not all at the same time. They are just mechanics.

 

I never said they should' date=' must, will, or do. However, there must be some form of parity unless you are playing a in a game like Ars Magica or MAGE where the "magic user" is basically supposed to be better than everyone else. [/quote']

 

Or a game where wizards are supposed to be weak (especially at the outset) and grow in power. In any case, we need parity if we’re to have a mixed bag adventuring group, which is generally desired.

 

Actually this one is complex and I disagree with it on multiple levels. Personally' date=' if we want to talk in terms of D&D, I think a 7th level D&D character is around 215 points. I think a 150 point character is basically around "1st level". Im not saying thats a universal constant or anything along those lines, but Ive converted a lot of D&D characters to the HERO System over the years, and the numbers I use work out on the money very frequently.[/quote']

 

I agree it’s complex. There are huge variations. Whether it’s on the money depends on what I compare it against. As an example, translating stats. Assume Joe Fighter has an 18 stat. What’s that in Hero?

 

- also an 18 – they move across pretty well,

- a 20 – the highest stat a normal human should start with

- a 23 – very remarkable, but not the peak attainable

- a 28 or 30 – the peak of human achievement, Also a +4 skill bonus over the starting 10, just like an 18 gives a +4 skill bonus

 

My 12/10/12/12/15/14 character translates very differently depending on the “stat ruler” used.

 

What +1 base attack bonus equates to similarly skews the costs. And it dovetails to stats, since it should match the +1 obtained from a higher DEX or STR.

 

The /3 method on the other hand isn't a "system". It doesn't model anything. It just says..."if you pick abilities for your character of a particular SFX you get a three for one special...just because. Characters that pick other SFX for their characters like "good fighter" and "sneaky rogue"? Played by people that can't do math, I guess."

 

I'm sorry if we can't see eye to eye on this, but IMO /3 is just an abortion from start to finish. To me it just seems like a ridiculously gamist, unfair, and creatively lazy approach. Encountered a hitch? Just throw points at it. It basically is a tacit admittance that the game is not balanced (which I don't agree with). I really can't say enough bad things about it. I dislike it on every level, and with good reasons IMO (which Ive already gone into in depth).

 

I’ve never seen a “good fighter” or “sneaky rogue” with his Combat Tricks or Sneakiness EC, Multipower or VPP, so this issue exists across many systems, in my view. I’ll confess to not being a scholar of your magic systems, however. Can you point me to an example where the mage pays full price for his spells? By this, I mean one which uses no frameworks or other cost reductions – if the wizard wants a 2d6 Explosive RKA Fireball, it costs 45 points, reduced by real limitations applied to the power. If he wants another spell, he buys it separately and pays full freight. To me, this would be the relevant comparable – divide by three is intended to be used instead of frameworks, not in addition to them.

 

Your dislike for divide by three doesn’t bother me – personal preferences vary, and make a good reason for using a system where your personal preferences can readily be accommodated.

 

Strange...the bulk of your counter arguments against EC's seemed to be founded on the efficiencies of Defense vs Attacks in the same EC caused by the fact that defenses are generally cheaper than attacks. I suppose I just misinterpreted it.

 

And of course, I think we all already know that ECs are generally inefficient for non-Constant attacks....right?

 

When I first read the Multiple Power Attack rules, I thought “finally – a reason for an EC, rather than a Multipower, of attacks”. Then they prohibited using attacks in an EC for an MPA. Not germane to the discussion (especially as spells generally aren’t allowed to MPA anyway), but I agree with your efficiency comments.

 

EC: It is true that an EC forces all powers to have the same MINIMUM AP' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Show me an efficient magic EC which includes both viable attack and defense spells, and a spell which allows the mage, and him alone, to breathe water. That one 5 AP power neuters the benefits of the EC. The mage needs either to buy that spell outside his EC or, alternatively, make it Usable By Others and slap a bunch of advantages on it to bring its AP up to parity.

 

Consider:

 

EC has 2 30 AP powers and 2 at 45. Ignore limitations for the moment. The EC costs 15 + 15 +15 + 30 + 30 = 105.

 

EC has 4 45 point powers. EC costs 22 + 23 + 23 + 23 + 23 = 114. Some rounding issues, and for 9 extra points, he gets a lot more power into those last two spells.

 

Add another 45 point power, and the first EC costs 135, the second 137, bridging the gap.

 

But add a 5 point power, and we get 2 + 3 + 28 +28 +43 +43 = 147 and 2 + 3 + 43 + 43 +43 +43 = 177. That 5 point power cost 42 and 63, respectively.

 

Even if we allow multiple EC’s and/or spells outside the framework, there’s still considerable work to munch out the ideal breakpoints – and they likely change with each spell added.

 

Add the SFX issue, and I (personal preference again) don’t like the EC approach.

 

MP: It is true that an MP can encourage all powers to have the same MAXIMUM AP' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Buy flex slots. No, I won’t always get the full 15 DC attack, since I’ll have other spells running, but one sniper shot and the tough bad guy is down – and it only cost a few more points. And a +25/+25 0 END force field?

 

Of course, good oversight solves this issue, but the structure does encourage uniform power levels. Multiform’s another good one. Once I’m Polymorphed to Dragon form, I don’t need my other spells anyway – or even have access to them!

 

As well, I’m more likely to have an attacks multipower and some common use spells outside the MP – if I’ll pretty much always want my Force Field up, why pay for it as a slot and higher pool? I’ll just buy it separately. My attacks will all have the same AP – why have only a 6d6 Flash when I can have 9d6 for a point more after limitations?

 

VPP: As I'm sure you know' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

The VPP flavour, to me, is you’re a wizard or you aren’t – no one has one or two minor spells, since the VPP makes that an inefficient choice.

 

Actually, KS, I think this is where your experience differs from many of us. In your games, a wide array of choice exists for which magic system “my character” will use. I find many games, however, are run using a single magic system. In those games, the limitations of any given system are much more visible. In your game, if I don’t like the EC SFX restriction, I use a VPP system instead. If I want just a minor spell or two, I avoid both and select one of your systems that better fits my vision.

 

But in a game which has just one magic system, I don’t have that luxury of choice, and the flavour and mechanical limitations play out much more clearly.

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I want to make a quick comparison.

 

How many points to make a mage a smokin MFr?

 

I can make a rampaging ginsu of death fighter for 33 points. 12 Points in martial arts, +2 DC martial arts, 1 WE, WF: Commmon melee, and +5 CLS with Martial Arts. This guy can stand with the elite crowd and probably deserves a Reputation for being a bad monkey. I can do similar with an Archer, Ranger, Thief, or other non-spell casting class. Attack, DEF, versility in combat actions, all of these figure in to the above character.

 

 

Rampaging ginsu of death he ain't. Those +5 2 point CSLs leave him with his DCV at base, which means he's gonna get clobbered pretty damn fast. And at range, where his HTH levels from martial arts won't help him, anyone with even +1 OCV will hit him most of the time.

 

He comes up against the mage Joe Average the Not Particularly Gifted who has 33 points sunk into a spell MP with the fairly generic limitations of gesture, incantations and focus (wand) and a half dozen spells as ultras and 1 CSL with his MP, who's tossing 45 AP spells and he's basically toast anyone of a dozen ways before he slings his first sword.

 

4d6 Entangle? Toast.

3d6 E RKA? Probably toast.

9d6 EB. Toast

2d6 explosive E RKA? Probably toast and definately hurting.

Ordinary old non-magical sword and invisibility? Probably toast

Ordinary old non-magical sword and a 30 PD forcefield 0 End? Toast and not even a slight argument about it.

5" flight UaA at range? Toast.

4d6 Ego Blast? Toast

9d6 mind control? He might not be toast, but his nearest team-mate might well be.

And so on.

 

I haven't even spent 20 seconds trying to optimise this - and I'm playing in the fighter's own ballpark - taking down a foe directly. And a mage can do many, many things more than that. Given their flexibility, I think fighters 'should' have an edge in direct combat - otherwise what are they for?

 

Personally, after playing and GM'ing FH for many many years, if mages in your games can't compete with fighters using the rules available, then your players have serious problems designing characters. Now to compete in combat, the simple example I gave can only have 6-10 ultra slots if he wants a few potent attack spells - but he's spent a whole 30 points on spells, fer Pete's sake. If he spends 50 points that gives him 11-20 spells -including some multi slots - at which point, unless the magic system has some limitations built in he's going to be enormously flexible AND powerful in combat.

 

And this is acknowledging that MP are powerful and useful but still have some limit in that you can't use all of that power at once. "Divide by three" allows the purchase of spells at the same or even higher levels of power with NO limitation about combining them. VPPs give even more flexibility at the cost of slightly reduced power. Using the same fairly generic limits, 33 points don't work too well, but 36 points (only slightly more) allows a 30 point VPP - which allows 2 30 point and 1 15 point powers to be active at once.

 

How's mr Ginsu of death going to cope with a flying invisible mage who is shooting 1d6 RKAs of firey death at him? Or who transmutes to stone (+20 PD/10 ED FF, +20 STR, 0END, 25% physical damage reduction) and just closes to hand to hand combat and kills him? Even with his martial arts and a two handed sword he's going to have hard time stunning the mage, but if the mage hits him back with a two handed sword, he's gonna be in a world of hurt. And unlike the mage he probably can't heal himself....

 

Basically the arguments in favour of this construct make no sense. If the argument is "You can't make powerful enough mages using the current rules" then the conclusion must be that MP or VPP are too weak: but that's hard to justify when a multipowered mage will almost always trash a fighter of similar points value unless magic is nerfed in some way.

 

If the argument is that MP is *too* powerful, then it's hard to see why you'd want a construct that freely gives away even more power.

 

It's got nothing to do with points either. Let's say you're playing a low point game - 25 plus 25. Take the "spell of the monstrous form" from the Grimoire, add Master's version and Many More Forms and then divide the real cost by three. Yay. For 16 points (a smidge under a third of your points), you can now shapechange into 128 different monsters up to 350 (IIRC) points in value. Just using the monsters from the Bestiary, as a basilisk you can sling an 8d6 RKA, as a troll you're massively strong, can see in the dark and regenerate, a variety of monsters give you flight, etc, etc, etc.

 

What, exactly, is your min-maxed 50 point fighter going to offer by way of comparison (hell, even a 150 point fighter is going to be no match for that). Multipowers and VPPs may be powerful but they prevent the generation of monstrosities like that and using just the official, published spells and "divide by 3", I can make other equally noxious characters.

 

Sure the GM can always say no, but why add an unneeded kludge, that more or less requires the GM to say no to many constructs? I'm not trying to be snarky and I'm not trying to put people down. But I honestly can't see a single reason why "divide by three" seems even remotely like a good idea.

 

 

cheers, Mark

[Manic Typist]

Re: Divide by Three

 

But I honestly can't see a single reason why "divide by three" seems even remotely like a good idea.

 

 

It's really easy to teach to brand new players, which is why I am sticking to it for now. But, when I am more familiar with these constructs, and feel comfortable teaching it to the players, I might very well transition them over said frameworks. At this point though, I'm trying to make it as easy on these new players as possible.

 

And so far, I haven't been convinced that these alternate methods are easier/simpler than divide by three, and I suppose easy is my goal (for now).

[Old Man]

Re: Divide by Three

 

They are also very common powers for a wizard to possess. If the system can’t handle them' date=' I see that as a problem in the system.[/quote']

 

I'm getting tired of repeating myself here, but yes, force field and flight are undercosted for fantasy. Again, this is irrelevant to the framework discussion.

 

 

Is it genre-consistent for all spells to have more or less the same power? Depends which part of the genre you look at, in my opinion.

 

Genre consistency depends on the subgenre, but my position has more to do with game balance.

 

Also, an EC requires a tight special effect. I question whether “magic” qualifies, especially in a fantasy game where many abilities are “magic”. If you want a game where mages focus on schools of magic (Fire Magic, Defensive Magic, Plant Magic), an EC based structure may be very effective. But a wizard with a Fireball, Shocking Grasp, Fly, Web and Shield spell seems not to fit well in that game.

 

I am so sick and tired of people trying to duplicate Duh N Duh in FH. Go play D&D if that's what you want. As for special effect, I see no problem with "sorcery" or "priestly magic" as EC special effect definitions.

 

 

I suspect, if the EC were introduced today rather than being with us since 1st Ed, it would be similarly criticized. After all:

 

- it reduces the AP cost of each power by half the AP of the smallest power, and costs you that same 1/2 AP. How is that any less arbitrary than reducing the cost of spells to 1/3?

- It offers a cost reduction to all “magic” powers. Why not all “great swordsman” powers or all “stealthy rogue” powers?

 

You argue that the EC is a cost break like /3, and then in the next breath you argue that cost breaks for magic are arbitrary. So what you're really saying is that neither ECs nor /3 should be used?

 

- It encourages spells of uniform AP. Is that balanced character construction?

 

The point you are overlooking is that the EC is indeed a cost break, but the value of that cost break is proportional to the number of powers in the EC. The player is therefore encouraged to buy more powers in the EC to maximize the benefit. My perception of the genre is that spellcasters ought to be able to cast more than one or two spells, and so I like to incorporate a mechanic that guides character development in that direction.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I'm getting tired of repeating myself here' date=' but yes, force field and flight are undercosted for fantasy. Again, this is irrelevant to the framework discussion.[/quote']

 

A player who purchases a spell that allows flight, 5", a spell which provides a +6/+6 Force Field at 1/2 END, a spell which provides a 9 DC attack, a Ghost Form desolidification spell, a spell of Invisibility and a water breathing spell is not able to build these efficiently using an EC. Regardless of whether one or two powers may or may not be undercosted, EC is not encouraging an array of spells unless those spells are of similar cost.

 

I am so sick and tired of people trying to duplicate Duh N Duh in FH. Go play D&D if that's what you want. As for special effect' date=' I see no problem with "sorcery" or "priestly magic" as EC special effect definitions. [/quote']

 

To me, a "tight SFX" is not one possessed by half the magic users in the game, but that compromise is probably necessary to make the EC viable as a framework for magic use.

 

You argue that the EC is a cost break like /3' date=' and then in the next breath you argue that cost breaks for magic are arbitrary. So what you're really saying is that neither ECs nor /3 should be used?[/quote']

 

I am arguing that the "divided by three" approach is not rendered less valid than the EC approach simply by virtue of the EC having been in the rules sooner. I am not claiming that "divide by three" is inherently superior to the use of frameworks. I am claiming it is not inherently inferior. They motivate different structures.

 

The point you are overlooking is that the EC is indeed a cost break' date=' but the value of that cost break is proportional to the number of powers in the EC. The player is therefore encouraged to buy more powers in the EC to maximize the benefit. My perception of the genre is that spellcasters ought to be able to cast more than one or two spells, and so I like to incorporate a mechanic that guides character development in that direction.[/quote']

 

I will aree the EC encourages more spells in the EC. However, it also encourages them to be very close in AP (with perhaps a single exception of higher AP than the other powers), and not to have an array of spells whose AP is set based on their desired effect. A magic system which sets a minimum number of spells a PC must know to be a magic user, or which sets a maximum AP for each spell based on total spels known, would also encourage mage characters to have a variety of spells.

 

Use of EC's should very much encourage Suppresses and Drains of "one magic power", however. Since magic is built with EC's, I know my adjustment powers will affect all your magic spells at the same time, so buying "Suppress all magic - +2" is a waste of points.

 

Finally, the fact you have had one or more unfortunate experiences with munchkin players who don't want to play in genre should not, in my view, govern the possible mechanical builds for spellcasters. It should govern the guidance for magic using characters, and the character review process.