Changing Magic

[Cantriped]

How would you handle a system of magic in which the methodology of casting is divorced from the actual spell. In that the same spell can generally be cast in one of several different ways (mechaniclly speaking)

EX: Rune Magic - in Rune magic a 'rune' is obviously required to cast a spell. However how would that be handled if said caster could Draw then Rune before casting, Inscribe it upon a object and carry it around for easier casting, Or Tattoo it upon them for even easier casting.

AND, should the tatoo/object be somehow lost, still be able (mechaniclly) to resort to drawing it

AND how do you make such a system affordable enough for the caster as to encourage people to actually play it.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Changing Magic

 

I would make liberal use of Variable Advantages and Variable Limitations. VA can turn a single spell into multi-use magic, so that casters could pay for fewer spells and still be versatile. VL could significantly alter the "flavor" of each casting of a particular spell.

 

The more expensive but ultimately more flexible option is to use Variable Power Pool as the basis for spell casting. You could bring down the Control Cost down at least, by limiting the types of Powers that the pool can contain, and/or by requiring Variable Limitations for all spells in the pool.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Changing Magic

 

What he said, plus Trigger, as described (somewhere) in Fantasy HERO.

 

Column of Fire, 3d6 RKA, blah blah blah, TRIGGER. Trigger goes off when caster completes incant/finishes drawing the rune/etc. Requires preparation time (as Extra Time, only for preparing spells in advance), and so on. Adjust for flavor from there.

[Cantriped]

Re: Changing Magic

 

Hmm, while the VL and VPP ideas are along the right lines, your thinking a little too versatile. In my above example I gave a system with three (but only three) casting methods, which is fine until you consider the vast potential difference in limitation value for these three thematiclly similar casting methods.

The first, drawing a rune, could be worth as much as -3 or more depending upon how accurately build it.

The second, carrying it around, would probably range -1/2 to -1 (because it's essentially a focus)

and the Third, a Tattoo, really wouldn't be worth a lim at all because it's an almost permenant addition to the casters body. Only losing the part of the body its on, or some sort of transform would deprive him of the ability to use that power.

 

So really my question is how do you resolve in HERO a system of magic that has multiple, strictly defined methods of casting, which can be used upon the same power interchangably.

[Curufea]

Re: Changing Magic

 

VPP can have limits and strictures put on it. i.e. (-1 Only one of three methods for spells). Or it might be a lesser limitation to the control cost.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Changing Magic

 

Variable Limitation would be the easiest -- since all things that do not directly involve improving the power generally limit it; so I would simply assign Variable Limitations (-1) and roll from there.

 

To make sure I get it, you're saying that one spell, say, to keep it simple Fireball can be prepped 3 different ways by the same caster, yes? There are two ways to do it. First, Variable Limitations, or, the ugly version, three separate versions of the spell.

 

And what Curufea said, which is similar (but more clarified) to what I was saying before. So that's three.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Changing Magic

 

How would you handle a system of magic in which the methodology of casting is divorced from the actual spell. In that the same spell can generally be cast in one of several different ways (mechaniclly speaking)

EX: Rune Magic - in Rune magic a 'rune' is obviously required to cast a spell. However how would that be handled if said caster could Draw then Rune before casting, Inscribe it upon a object and carry it around for easier casting, Or Tattoo it upon them for even easier casting.

AND, should the tatoo/object be somehow lost, still be able (mechaniclly) to resort to drawing it

AND how do you make such a system affordable enough for the caster as to encourage people to actually play it.

 

Runecrafting

[Cantriped]

Re: Changing Magic

 

Yeah, I've seen that KS. The Rune magic thing was an example because it's similar to what I'm going for thematicly.

 

 

Hmm, lemme try to give ya'll a practical example of what I'm trying to build.

Example:

Let us assume there are thee mages, each has a verity of spells at his disposal, all of which require a specific 'Seal' as a focus. for clarification, it doesn't matter how the seal is represented physically, so long as it's close enough for him to channel Magical Energy into it.

Mage x, loves Fireball. So much so that in order to ensure that he can always cast fireball, he has the 'Fireball Seal' tattooed upon arms. Now he can never be deprived of the focus for his Fireball spell.

Mage Y also loves Fireball, but he isn't as extreme about them as Mage X was, so he Etches the arcane symbols for his fireball spell into a Gauntlet, now as long as he has the gauntlet, he can cast fireball. Should he lose that gauntlet however he would have to spend an inordinate amount of time drawing those same arcane symbols in order to cast the same fireball.

Both the Tattoo of Mage X, and the Gauntlet of Mage Y can only be used to cast Fireball, so if either of them wanted to cast Lightning Bolt, they would have to draw the arcane symbols required in order to do so.

Mage Z, Seeing what Mage X and Y did, goes over board and scribes a massive scroll containing the Seals for every spell he knows. Now mage Z can cast any of his spells as quickly as he can find the proper seal within the scroll. Of course, if the scroll is stolen or destroyed, he must draw the symbols for EVERY spell he wishes to cast.

 

When I said that the Method of casting was divorced from the actual spell, I truely meant it in the sense that the Method itself could be considered an entirely seperate power except in that the spell cannot be cast without it. Each of hte examples above would have to be dealt with differently.

 

Also of note is that this idea is assuming that characters are NOT Iconic, As it is my general oppinion the a character usually shouldn't pay for their equipment with points. Those points are much better spent upon developing the skills and abilities of the character.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Changing Magic

 

Thats just variations on one Focus, multiple Focuses, or no Focus.

 

Mages X, Y, and Z just have slightly different limitations on the versions of Fireball that they know.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Changing Magic

 

Thats just variations on one Focus, multiple Focuses, or no Focus.

 

Mages X, Y, and Z just have slightly different limitations on the versions of Fireball that they know.

 

What he said.

[Cantriped]

Re: Changing Magic

 

Alright, but if I were to treat is as a normal foci, then in order to do something entirely believable like just carry a different focus (for example, Mage Y might also have a scroll with the Fireball Seal in it that he carries when weight is an issue), then he would (mechanically speaking) have to change the value of the limitation either up or down because while a Gauntlet is OIF, a Scroll is probably OAF Fragile. And heaven forbid he loses it and can't replace it for a long period of time, because then the power would have to change from Focus for -2 or more in other modifiers

 

If I were to use a limitation to represent this specialized type of focus, it would have to be a Flat limitation that requires a point expenditure elsewhere (a little bit Like Requires a Skill Roll does). Additionally, the value of such an expenditure would have to be able to be controlled or limited as the circumstances of it's SFX demanded, without doing strange things to the character point total (Ala, having the character point value go up and down depending upon day to day circumstance).

 

Example: For a flat -1/2 limitation (that they don’t take on the Tattooed seals), The character must possess a 5 active point piece of 'equipment' (Apply Limitations to taste), for each spell he wishes to cast, or suffer -X in limitations apropos to Drawing the proper arcane symbols prior to casting.

These 'powers' could be combined to allow for objects containing multiple seals (and because the limitations are lumped together I assume it would be cheaper due to rounding rules)

The above mentioned 'power' would be treated like mundane equipment (and thus purchased with money or made with skills the character possesses. (because the 'AP of the power would increase as more Seals were added to the item, there would be a Scale of difficulty inherent in putting a bunch of them onto a single item, and it becomes more of a liability to lose said item, which offsets the advantages of potentially reduced weight of having fewer items, and the greater accessibility to the characters magical abilities.

If the GM doesn't have time to deal with all of those thematic issues or is running a less gritty game, they could also use DCs Resource point rules to handle these special types of Foci, treating them like any other piece of equipment.

 

OR… I could just treat it as a Flat limitation priced somewhere in between the values for Drawing as opposed to worn/carried and stop being such a nit picking bastard about everything (Can anybody tell I’m a perfectionist?)

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Changing Magic

 

Basically what you are saying...or at least what I am receiving is "Must Have Widget To Turn On, But Widget Can Be Polymorphic".

 

 

I think you are waaaaay over thinking this. At some point, needing some kind of item to initiate a Power is either limiting or it isnt. How limiting is based on how likely it is to present a problem at some point. More often is worth more, less often is worth less. You're particular scenario is less limiting, so set it to be worth a smaller Lim.

 

 

Personally it's just a Focus of Opportunity, or actually just Restrainable, or a custom defined Lim that states the exact behavior you want even.

[Cantriped]

Re: Changing Magic

 

Alright, thanks all. This wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of over thinking something, and I doubt it will be the last time I make a mechanical mountain out of a SFX molehill.

 

So, if it's a generic Focus of Opportunity, that will always be obvious, but can 'easily' be overcome in another way that would make it worth what? -1/4?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Changing Magic

 

If its less limiting than a normal OIF (Focus of Opportunity), then the only place to go is to -1/4...and if its even less limiting than -1/4 its at best a -0.

[Curufea]

Re: Changing Magic

 

It could be worth nothing at all - if it is ubiquitous with casting magic and no one can get around not using one, then it is part of the setting. As a rule for the setting it doesn't need to give any advantages in points to anyone, because everyone has the same limitation.

[phookz]

Re: Changing Magic

 

It could be worth nothing at all - if it is ubiquitous with casting magic and no one can get around not using one' date=' then it is part of the setting. As a rule for the setting it doesn't need to give any advantages in points to anyone, because everyone has the same limitation.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. If the setting were to require extra time for all spells, would that not still be a limitation? A limitation that isn't limiting isn't worth any points, but I don't agree that it holds that a limitation that applies to everyone is not a limitation.

 

For example, let's suppose it is a spell that gives extra STR, but the rules of the campaign require all castings to take extra time, one turn. That is still a limitation, because someone could just buy the characteristic up at the regular cost, but not as a spell.

 

I think you're confusing the disadvantage rules with limitations. It is true that if there is a ubiquitous disadvantage it isn't worth any points, but that isn't the same as a limitation.

[Curufea]

Re: Changing Magic

 

True - if comparing magic with other forms of power such as magic items and so on, then it isn't an across-the-board limitation and should be costed out.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Changing Magic

 

 

I think you're confusing the disadvantage rules with limitations. It is true that if there is a ubiquitous disadvantage it isn't worth any points, but that isn't the same as a limitation.

What C was saying, was that in the case where there was only one Magic System in a setting, restrictions that are demanded by that Magic System don't necessarily have to be statted out, as they are universal.

 

This can be a very valid approach.

 

However, if there are other Systems or means of power in play, or if it would affect the costing of the Magic System significantly then they should be statted out.

[Markdoc]

Re: Changing Magic

 

I faced the same problem when using the Runequest setting, and settled on -1/2 "Requires appropriate runes" with the base assumptions that drawing a rune was a concentration-requiring activity that took at least an action per rune (a phase after all, is only 3-4 seconds) and that a rune that was obscured or damaged was no longer functional.

 

With those limitations, I figured it was about the same as OIF or "weapon of opportunity". Since almost all magic used it, the significance of runes was well known (making it hard to pass off as a simple tattoo!). A character using a tattooed rune (pretty common) could expect to have them scarred over if he was captured (hence acting similarly to an OIF, except that a well-placed stab in combat or even a handful of mud could do the same: remember they have to be unobscured - so a little less effective than an OIF). If he could find something to draw with, he could get the powers back - similar to a focus of opportunity - but unlike a focus of opportunity - a sword say - you'd be at risk taking the time to redraw it in combat.

 

I can see dropping the limit to -1/4, but in the end decided to hold it at -1/2 because luck and your cult determined ultimately what runes you had access to, giving a further limitation - the exact sze of the limitation ultimately is a GM's decision, based on how limitingit will be in the campaign

 

cheers, Mark

[Cantriped]

Re: Changing Magic

 

I see, I'll probably go with -1/4 then, because obscuring the seal won't necessarially stop it from functioning (but even covered by something you'll know it's there when he casts a spell through it).

These Seals are also universal foci, so if one Mage Y steals Mage Zs Scroll (mentioned in example above) then Mage Y could use it to cast any of the spells in it that he already knows.

[Damascan]

Re: Changing Magic

 

Hmm. Just to muddle the pot, I'll my two coppers worth...

 

Why not spell out what the advantages disadvantages of each method are, working them out so that there the total Limitation value for each method comes out to about the same?

 

For instance, a tattoo might be very convenient, since it's always with you, but maybe it has a nasty Side Effect to it whenever it is used (burns, causes hallucinations, etc.) or costs Extra Endurance since it's pulling energy directly from the user's aura...

 

The gauntlet is already a Focus, but might be quite a pain to create, hard to replace, etc. Also, it might have a limited number of Charges.

 

The scrolls might be Expendable, i.e., one use and they disintegrate, and they are hard to replace (extra time, etc.).

 

If each 'method' has its own set of limitations that focus around the method and add up to the same limitation, then the methods would be interchangeable and would be considered requirements of the magic college, right?

 

I'll let the gurus judge whether these should all be a Variable Limitation. I see what you are trying to do, and I think it's a cool idea in any case.